Preview
FILED
3/20/2024 5:38 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’ MOTION TO COMPEL FOR THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION
l
Summary of Argument
Oliver Krautscheid, on behalf of Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC (“Defendants”), has been trying to negotiate a
settlement between Dr. Detlef Mader, Defendants’ former President who approved all of
the transactions at issue in this litigation, and Defendants, which directly implicates the
claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production (the
“Third RFPs”) seeking information regarding Dr. Mader’s employment and resignation;
Krautscheid’s work for Defendants; Defendants’ and Krautscheid’s communications with
Dr. Mader; and Defendants’ claims and attempts to settle with Dr. Mader. In response,
Defendants asserted improper objections and failed to produce any documents.
Defendants offered to make documents available for inspection but refused to state if they
are responsive to any of the requests. Moreover, some of the documents sought should
have been produced in compliance with the Court’s January 12 Order. Therefore,
Plaintiffs ask the Courtto overrule Defendants’ improper objections and order Defendants
to amend their responses and produce all responsive documents.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 1 of 13
I.
Facts
This is a dispute over Defendants’ default under multiple agreements, including
loan agreements, and Defendants’ counterclaims related to compensation paid to
Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Each
of the agreements in dispute in this matter were agreed to and executed by Dr. Detlef
Mader on behalf of Defendants. During the relevant time period, Dr. Detlef Mader was
Defendants’ President and the CEO of Global Oil & Gas AG (“GOGAG’).
Following Plaintiff Bernard Tubeileh’s departure as Defendants’ Manager in 2023,
Dr. Mader remained as CEO of GOGAG and as Defendants’ President.
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production
on Defendants, seeking information regarding Dr. Mader’s employment, compensation,
termination, and GOGAG’s acceptance of Dr. Mader’s appointment as Defendants’
President. See Ex. A (the “First RFPs”) at A.12, A.13.
In December 2023, Mr. Tubeileh received a phone call from Dr. Mader. Dr. Mader
informed Mr. Tubeileh of the following:
1 In September 2023 (during the pendency of this litigation, and near the time of the
First RFPs), Oliver Krautscheid, working as “Chairman” of GOGAG, presented Dr.
Mader with the alternative of either voluntarily resigning from his position as
Defendants’ President or being officially dismissed by the Supervisory Board for
case.
Since September 29, 202[3], Dr. Mader is no longer a member of GOGAG’s
management board or Defendants’ President.
On September 29, 2023, Dr. Mader made “an offer of an amicable settlement” to
GOGAG and Defendants regarding his departure as a member of GOGAG’s
Executive Board and Defendants’ President. He asked for 500 euros per month
in 2023 and 2024 and continuing through the term of a new consultancy contract
to begin on January 1, 2025; payment of 40,000 euros per year for 2023 and 2024
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
2 of 13
(as compensation for his role as Defendants’ President); and payment of his
health insurance and payroll accounting.
Oliver Krautscheid, as “mediator”, tried to negotiate a solution between GOGAG,
Defendants, and Dr. Mader.1
Krautscheid sent Dr. Mader a draft termination agreement on November 21, 2023.
Dr. Mader reiterated his September 29, 2023 offer and stated that he needed “the
above-mentioned financing for my continued unrestricted cooperation in all
matters.”
Krautscheid rejected Dr. Mader’s offer and offered the compensation detailed in
the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung.
See Ex. B, December 23, 2023 email from Dr. Detlef Mader to Bernard Tubeileh with
attached AUFHEBUNGSVEREINBARUNG?.
Dr. Mader forwarded Mr. Tubeileh the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung provided to
him by Oliver Krautscheid. He asked Mr. Tubeileh to “treat the attached documents as
strictly confidential and do not pass them on to third parties under any circumstances.”
See Ex. B.12. The aufhebungsvereinbarung, which was requested and drafted on behalf
of GOGAG and Defendants, sent by Mr. Krautscheid to Dr. Mader contains the following
relevant provisions:
1 Dr. Mader “has been appointed Supervisory President of [Defendants] in 2021”;
2. Dr. Mader resigned from GOGAG’s management board and his duties as
Defendants’ President “with a statement dated September 29, 2023”;
On November 22/28, 2016, GOGAG and Dr. Mader executed a Management
Board Service Agreement and subsequently entered into amendment
agreements, which was prematurely terminated by mutual agreement at the end
of November 30, 2023;
1 Defendants have indicated that they control Oliver Krautscheid. Mr. Krautscheid attends hearings in this
matter by Zoom, presumably on behalf of Defendants. Mr. Krautscheid’s deposition is currently noticed
for April 25, 2024.
2 The German version of the email and attachment are attached to this Motion as Ex. B.1-B.8 (as
produced to Defendants). The certified English translation is attached to this Motion as Ex. B.9-B.17.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
3 of 13
GOGAG and Dr. Mader wish to “agree on an early termination by mutual consent
of all contractual relationships” with GOGAG and its affiliates, “in particular
[Defendants]”;
Dr. Mader will “be available free of charge” to his successors and GOGAG’s
Supervisory Board “for the provision of information in connection with his previous
activities with [Defendants]” and “make all declarations and perform all
cooperative acts that are necessary and/or useful”;
Dr. Mader would receive a lump sum of 3,000 euros “to settle any claims made
by [Dr. Mader] against [GOGAG], in particular [Defendants]”;
Even after conclusion of the aufhebungsvereinbarung, Dr. Mader would continue
“a) to safeguard the interests of [GOAG and Defendants]; b) to behave loyally
towards [GOAG and Defendants]; and c) to support the assertion of claims for
damages and other claims against other persons free of charge and in this respect
to cooperate in particular in the clarification of facts arising from and in connection
with the assertion of and defense against claims by third parties [aka Plaintiffs]
against [GOGAG and Defendants]”; and
Dr. Mader will not make any “statements, in particular to employees and business
partners, including those who have already left” [aka, Tubeileh] without “prior
consultation” with GOGAG; this includes “all communication between [Dr. Mader]
and employees and business partners, including those who have already left the
company” [aka Tubeileh].
See Ex. B.13-B.16.
The draft aufhebungsvereinbarung also includes a confidentiality provision which
applies “without restriction and in particular also to employees and managers of the
company and its affiliated companies, in particular [Defendants], who have already left
the company [aka Tubeileh].” See Ex. B.16-B.17. This aufhebungsvereinbarung is
drafted to expressly prohibit Dr. Mader from sharing its existence with Plaintiffs;
presumably, had Plaintiffs not been informed of these communications by Dr. Mader,
Defendants would never have informed Plaintiffs of their existence.
On February 6, 2024, Plaintiffs produced the email from Dr. Mader along with the
attached aufhebungsvereinbarung. See Ex. B, BT305279-BT305286. On the same day,
Plaintiffs served their Third RFPs. See Ex. C.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
4 of 13
Defendants served their responses to the Third RFPs on March 7, 2024 (the
“Responses’). See Ex. D. Defendants’ Responses lodged fourteen “General
Reservations” and objected to “the time and place for production” for each request. Ex.
D.4, J 13. Defendants offered to make documents available for inspection in their
“General Reservations” but did not identify to which requests, if any, these documents
are allegedly responsive. /d. at 14. Defendants lodged inappropriate “equally available”
objections to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32. D.6-D10. Defendants failed to
produce any documents but, without requesting an extension from Plaintiffs or the Court,
indicated that they would “produce [any/any additional] responsive documents within the
next thirty days.” /d. at Request Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, and 32.
Plaintiffs contacted Defendants about the deficiencies with their Responses.
Defendants refused to clarify their positions, withdraw their objections, timely produce
documents, or identify to which requests, if any, the documents to be made available for
production are allegedly responsive. See Ex. E, Emails between Plaintiffs’ counsel and
Defendants’ Counsel regarding Third RFPs.
I.
Argument & Authoritie:
All of the information requested by Plaintiffs in the Third RFPs is discoverable.
Defendants objections should be overruled and the Court should compel production of
responsive documents, as follows:
A. Responsive Documents Previously Ordered to Be Produced
The Court previously ordered Defendants to produce documents which would
include the information requested in the Third RFPs; however, Defendants have not done
so, despite the Court's Order and specific requests. Dr. Mader’s Management Board
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
5 of 13
Service Agreement and amended agreements, resignation statement, and the draft
aufhebungsvereinbarung, are responsive to Request Nos. 73 and 76 from Plaintiffs’ First
Set of Production to Defendants. See Ex. A.12-A.13. The Court overruled Defendants’
objections to Request Nos. 73 and 76 and ordered Defendants to produce responsive
documents on or before February 15, 2024; however, to date, Defendants have not
produced these documents. See January 12, 2024 Order, attached as Ex. F, at F2, F.3.
Therefore, because these documents are responsive, because the Court previously
ordered Defendants to produce them, and because Defendants failed to produce them,
Plaintiffs ask the Court to, once again, order Defendants to produce all documents
responsive to Request Nos. 73 and 76 from the First RFPs.
B. Defendants’ Improper Objection to Time and Place
To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely
objection in writing and state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and
the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request. /n re Fisher & Paykel
Appliances, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 842, 847 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (citing /n re
Cl Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002); Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a)). Defendants failed
to provide any legal or factual basis for their objection to the time and place for production
in the Responses. See Ex. D. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Defendants’ counsel for the basis
for Defendants’ objection to the time and place of production in response to all of the Third
RFPs, and Defendants’ counsel responded as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
6 of 13
1 You've objected to the time and place for production with no basis and haven't provided a reasonable
time and place for complying with the requests; your responses do not comply with Rule 193 or 196.
What’s the basis of the objection to the time and place for production? Please withdraw this objection
and produce all responsive documents, as required.
fe dui
of h liant th Please see Rule 19 which
Ex. E.3.
To the contrary, Defendants have not complied with the Rules. Defendants have
not articulated any basis for their objection to the time and place for production, in violation
of Rule 193.2(a). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). Defendants have not soughtan extension
of time from either Plaintiffs or the Court to extend the timeframe to produce responsive
documents; responsive documents were due on March 7, 2024. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
196.2, 196.3(a). Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ improper,
baseless objection to the time and place of production and compel Defendants to produce
all responsive documents to the Third RFPs.
C. Documents for Inspection and Copying
General Reservation 14 to Defendants’ Responses indicates that Defendants will
make “documents” available for inspection and copying; notably, Defendants do not say
that they will make responsive documents available for inspection and copying. See Ex.
D.4 at J 14. Defendants’ Responses to the individual requests for production do not
indicate that Defendants are in possession of responsive documents that will be made
available for inspection and copying. See Ex. D.4-D.10. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked
Defendants to which responses the hard-copy documents are responsive; Defendants’
counsel declined to respond, stating as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
7 of 13
You say that you'll make documents available to Plaintiffs for inspection and copying. Do you have
documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of RFPs that you're offering to make available? If
so, please let me know which specific requests they are responsive to, and where and when we can
inspect them.
n 1e1 ns} n fe
rds hi ire rod d
in: on i in
uir See Rule 196.3(c). Moreover, I note that you have not
Ex. E.3.
Defendants offer to make hard-copy documents available for inspection and
copying; however, Defendants refuse to tell Plaintiffs if there are responsive documents
in hard copy that have not been made available to Plaintiffs electronically, or to which
requests the hard copy documents are responsive. See Ex. G.1, February 26, 2024 email
from J. Sindelar, in connection with the First RFPs; Ex. H.1, March 12, 2024 email from
C. Bowline (with no response from Defendants), in connection with the First RFPs; Ex.
E.3 (in connection with the Third RFPs). While it is true that a party may produce
documents and tangible things as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, a
basic tenet of the rules is that any documents produced for inspection must be requested.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2; 196.3. Defendants have not described what these hard-copy
documents are, or to which requests those documents may be responsive (if any)°. See
Ex. D.4-D.10; Ex. E.3; Ex. G.1; Ex. H.1.
It is Defendants’ duty to perform a diligent search and respond, for each request,
to state whether 1) production or inspection will be permitted, 2) the requested items are
being served with the response, 3) production or inspection will take place at a specified
time and place; or 4) no items identified after a diligent search that are responsive to the
3 This is also one of the bases of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, For Sanctions, and to Show Cause, filed on
February 26, 2024, as to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, which is currently set for hearing
before the Court on April 8, 2024.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
8 of 13
request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2(b). Defendants have produced more than a million
pages of documents, the majority of which are not responsive to any of Plaintiffs’ requests
and were not requested by Plaintiffs. Defendants seek to impermissibly shift the burden
of the search for responsive documents to Plaintiffs by offering for inspection documents
that Defendants have not reviewed for responsiveness (or, Defendants have reviewed
the hard-copy documents, but have impermissibly not told Plaintiffs to which requests
they are responsive, if any). Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to
amend their Responses to indicate to which, if any, of the Third RFPs Defendants have
responsive hard-copy documents that they have not produced, or will not produce,
electronically.
D. Improper Equally Accessible Objection in Response to Request Nos. 14, 15,
18, 19, 20, and 32
In response to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32, Defendants have objected
that Plaintiffs seek documents “already in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.” See
Ex. D.6-D.10. However, an “objection that the information sought is equally available is
an invalid objection. Texas law does not allow a party to evade discovery requests by
simply asserting that the other party already has the same information... Requiring your
opponent to produce certain documents enables the party seeking discovery to activate
the automatic authentication rights provided by Rule 193.7.” See In re Sting Soccer
Group, LP, 2017 WL 5897454, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.).
Defendants have indicated that they “have not asserted this as a basis for withholding
any documents or responding to any requests,” but they have not withdrawn their
objections and they have not produced any documents. See Ex. D.6-D.10; Ex. E.4.
Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ invalid equally available
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page
9 of 13
objections and compel Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Request Nos.
14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32, including the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung produced by
Plaintiffs as BT305282-305286.
E. Improper Objections for Request Nos. 5-10 and Oliver Krautscheid
Request Nos. 5-10 seek information regarding Oliver Krautscheid, the German
national that replaced Mr. Tubeileh as manager for Defendants (including, importantly,
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC (“GOG Fields”)), and his ability to work in the
United States.
In response to Request Nos. 5-10, Defendants have incorporated their objections
from Request No. 88 from Plaintiffs’ First RFPs and stand on these objections. See Ex.
D.5-D.6. Defendants object that the requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek
documents are not relevant to the claims or defenses nor reasonably proportional to the
needs of the case, and seek information that would violate the General Data Protection
Regulation. See Ex. |, excerpts of Defendants’ Responses to First RFPs, at I.8. The Court
sustained Plaintiffs’ objection to Request No. 88 at the hearing on January 5, 2024. See
Ex. F.2.
Defendants produced Global_14362-14401, the GOG Fields Employment
Handbook (the “Handbook”) 4. See Ex. J. The Handbook details procedures for hiring
employees, and states that GOG Fields is “committed to employing only United States
citizens and aliens who are authorized to work in the United States.” Ex. J.6
(Global_0014367). The Handbook further provides that each new employee, as a
4 Defendants’ produced this document as “Confidential” under the Agreed Protective Order. A blank
documents is being filed, and Plaintiffs will provide the Court with a copy of Global_14362-14401 for
review in accordance with the Agreed Protective Order.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 10 of 13
condition of employment, must complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9
and present documentation establishing identity and employment eligibility. /d. The
Handbook provides that GOG Fields may participate in E-Verify, and that pursuant to E-
Verify, GOG Fields provides the Social Security Administration, and if necessary, the
Department of Homeland Security with information from each new employee’s Form |-9
to confirm work authorization. /d.
Unlike previous Request No. 88, which sought all documents showing any work
permit or visa without particularity, Request Nos. 5-10 seek the very information detailed
in the Handbook produced by Defendants. See Ex. C.5; Ex. J.6. These requests are
narrowly tailored and seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of this case;
they are not overly broad or unduly burdensome. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). Plaintiffs’
allegations concerning Mr. Krautscheid are detailed in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition
at paragraphs 27 through 34, and the information sought by Request Nos. 5-10 pertains
to the parties’ respective breach of contract claims (including Count IV from the Third
Amended Petition). See Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition and Application for Declaratory
Judgment filed 11/15/2023. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’
objections and order them to produce all documents responsive to Request for Production
Nos. 5-10 from the Third RFPs.
F. Failure to Produce Documents
Defendants failed to produce any documents in response to the Third RFPs. The
deadline for Defendants to produce responsive documents was March 7, 2024 (30 days
from service). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2; 196.3. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order
Defendants to produce all documents responsive to the Third RFPs.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 11 of 13
IV.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Defendants failed to produce documents previously ordered to be
produced by the Court. In addition, in their Responses to the Third RFPs, Defendants
asserted improper objections; objected to the time and place for production without stating
any basis; and failed to produce any documents. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to
overrule Defendants’ improper objections and order Defendants to amend their
Responses to the Third RFPs and produce all responsive documents.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and
Sinostar Investments LLC respectfully pray that this Court 1) overrule Defendants’
objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production, and 2) order Defendants to
a) amend their responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production, b) identify to
which specific requests for production, if any, any hard-copy documents which have not
been previously produced are responsive, and c) produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production (and Request Nos. 73 and 76 from
Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, as previously ordered by the Court); and
3) further grant Plaintiffs all such further relief, whether in law or in equity, to which they
may show themselves justly entitled.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 12 of 13
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
kvanstory@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
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
In accordance with Local Rule 2.07 of Dallas County, the undersigned counsel
corresponded with counsel for Defendants by email on March 13 and multiple times on
March 18. Counsel substantively discussed the items and despite best efforts, no
agreements have been reached. Accordingly, the matter is submitted to the Court for a
hearing and a ruling.
/s/ Courtney Bowline
Courtney G. Bowline
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, | certify that
on March 20, 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.
/s/ Courtney Bowline
Courtney G. Bowline
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 13 of 13
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
BERNARD TUBEILEH’S AND SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC’S FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC AND GLOBAL
OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC
TO: Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma
LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Christopher M. Staine,
Crowe & Dunlevy, 2525 McKinnon St., Suite 425, Dallas, TX 75201, and Joshua
L. Fellenbaum, Michael C. Zellers, Jeffrey Sindelar., and Stephanie A. Rzepka,
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100, Cleveland, OH 44113.
Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Bernard
Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC submit the following requests for production to
Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC to
be produced at the undersigned counsel's office and permit Plaintiffs, through their
designated counsel of record, to inspect and copy the documents identified in these
requests within thirty (30) days after service.
Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 1
Exhibit A.1
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
kvanstory@brianlauten.com
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 414-0996 telephone
(214) 744-3015 facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BERNARD TUBEILEH and
SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| certify that on September 18, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 21(a).
/s/ Courtney G. Bowline
Courtney G. Bowline
Berard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 2
Exhibit A.2
DEFINITIONS
“GOG Texas” refers to Defendant Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and any and all
agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or
representing it in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr.
Detlef Mader and Lori Land.
“GOG Fields” refers to Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and any and all
agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or
representing it in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr.
Detlef Mader and Lori Land.
“GOGAG’ refers to Global Oil & Gas AG and any and all agents, representatives,
employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity
or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr. Detlef Mader, Oliver Krautscheid,
and any member of its supervisory board (including Stefan ten Doornkaat, Matthias
Gaebler, and Witold Kolodziej.
“Defendants” means GOG Texas and GOG Fields.
“Tubeileh” refers to Plaintiff Bernard Tubeileh, and any and all agents,
representatives, or other persons subject to his control or representing him in any
capacity or for any purpose.
“Sinostar” refers to Sinostar Investments LLC and any and all agents,
representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing
it in any capacity or for any purpose.
“GDT” means Global Derivative Trading GmbH, and any and all agents,
representatives, employees, or other persons subject to their control or
representing them in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to
Thorsten Wagner.
“Blackhorn” means Blackhorn USA, LLC, Blackhorn Group, LLC, and any and all
agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to their control or
representing them in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to
Logan Wheat.
The “2017 Agreement” means the July 29, 2017 Employment Agreement between
Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG.
10 The “2019 Agreement” means the March 31, 2019 Employment Agreement
between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG.
11 The “2020 Agreement” means the September 1, 2020 Agreement, as amended in
May 2021, between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG.
Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 3
Exhibit A.3
12 The “2022 Agreement” means the June 10, 2022 Agreement between Tubeileh,
GOG Fields, and GOGAG.
13 The “PSA” means the Purchase and Sale Agreement effective September 10,
2021, under which GOG Texas agreed to purchase all of Tubeileh’s ORRI interests
in vertical and horizontal wells in certain parts of Kentucky in which it participated,
as amended by the Amendment dated November 12, 2021, and the Second
Amendment dated September 9, 2022; the Purchase and Sale Agreement
effective October 5, 2022, under which GOG Texas agreed to purchase all of
Tubeileh’s ORRI interests in vertical and horizontal wells in Clay County, Illinois;
the Purchase and Sale Agreement effective November 1, 2022, under which GOG
Texas agreed to purchase all of Tubeileh’s ORRI interests in vertical and horizontal
wells in Washington County, Illinois.
14 The “February Sinostar Loan Agreement” means the February 15, 2023 Loan
Agreement in the amount of $1,227,917.61 between Sinostar, GOG Texas, and
GOG Fields.
15 The “Tubeileh Loan Agreement” means the March 15, 2023 Loan Agreement in
the amount of $1,861,359.41 between Tubeileh, GOG Texas, and GOG Fields.
16 The “Tubeileh Note” means the March 15, 2023 Promissory Note in the amount of
$1,861 ,359.41 from GOG Texas and GOG Fields payable to Tubeileh.
17 The “March Sinostar Loan Agreement” means the March 17, 2023 Loan
Agreement in the amount of $405,598.43 between Sinostar, GOG Texas, and
GOG Fields.
18 The “Sinostar Note” means the March 17, 2023 Promissory Note in the amount of
$405,598.43 from GOG Texas and GOG Fields payable to Sinostar.
19 The “Lawsuit” shall refer to the above-styled lawsuit, Cause No. DC-23-07534,
pending in the 68th Civil District Court in Dallas County, Texas.
20 “Petition” means Plaintiff's Original Petition filed in the Lawsuit and all
amendments/supplements thereto.
21 “Answer” means Defendants’ Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Counterclaim filed in the Lawsuit and all
amendments/supplements thereto.
22 “Document” means all originals and non-identical copies of any papers, books,
accounts, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records,
recordings, compact discs, other data compilations from which information can be
obtained and translated, if necessary, by you through detection devices into
Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC. Page 4
Exhibit A.4
reasonably usable form, and tangible things. As used herein, the term “document”
or “documents” includes without limitation the following items regardless of origin
or location, whether printed or recorded or filmed or reproduced by any other
mechanical process, or written or produced by hand, whether or not claimed to be
privileged against discovery on any ground, and whether an original, master or
copy, namely: contracts, letters, correspondence, cablegrams, telegrams, telexes,
communications, intra-company communications, telephone records and
notations, meeting and conference minutes, notations and lists of persons
attending, invoices, work orders, summaries and records of personal
conversations or interviews, ledgers, journals and other formal or informal books
of record and account, books, manuals, publications and diaries, laboratory and
engineering reports and notebooks, blueprints, charts, plans, sketches, drawings,
photographs, reports and/or summaries of investigations, opinions and reports of
consultants; computer data, computer printouts, computer programs, electronic
mail, tape recordings, video recordings, bulletins, instructions, financial
statements, reports, memoranda, notes, copies of reproductions of the foregoing
upon which notations in writing have been made which do not appear on the
originals, and any other information containing writing, paper or tangible items in
the possession, custody or control of Defendants or Defendants’ attorney.
23 “Computer-based information.” In those instances when requested information is
stored only on software or other data compilations, the responding party should
either produce the raw data along with all codes and programs for translating it into
usable form, or produce the information in a finished usable form that includes all
necessary glossaries, keys, and indices for interpretation of the material.
24 The word “or” is inclusive and refers to any one or more of the disjoined words or
phrases and the terms any and all include each and every.
25 “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association,
corporation, or any other type of entity.
26 “Concerning” or “concern” means embodying, pertaining to, reflecting, involving,
constituting, comprising, discussing, evidencing, relating to, consisting of, or
having any logical or factual connection whatsoever with the subject matter in
question.
27 “Communications,” as used herein, means and includes a face-to-face meeting or
a communication by means of a telephone, radio, or other similar means of verbal
transmission of information, as well as all forms of written communication,
including email, facsimile, text messages, and other electronic means of
communication.
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD
Unless otherwise specified by the request, these requests cover the time period
Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 5
Exhibit A.5
from January 1, 2017 to the present.
TRCP 193.7 NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED
Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, please be advised
that Plaintiffs hereby put Defendants on actual notice that they intend to use all documents
produced in response to these discovery requests, as well as any later propounded
discovery requests, at the time of trial or at any hearing. If it is your position that any
document you have produced is not self-authenticating, please provide your objections
within 10 days of the document being produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See TEx. R. Civ. P.
193.7.
REQUEST FOR ELECTRONIC INFORMATION
Pursuant to Rule 196.4, these requests specifically seek responsive electronically
stored Information and any and all other forms of “E-Discovery,” which Plaintiffs seek in
Native Format.
Berard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of
Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and
Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 6
Exhibit A.6
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Request for Production No. 1 Please produce a complete copy of the 2017
Agreement, including any amendments and supplements.
Request for Production No. 2 Please produce all communications between Tubeileh,
on the one hand, and GOGAG, on the other, regarding the 2017 Agreement.
Request for Production No. 3 Please produce all communications between Tubeileh,
on the one hand, and GOG Fields, on the other, regarding the 2017 Agreement.
Request for Production No. 4 Please produce all communications between Dr. Detlef
Mader and GOGAG, including members of the Supervisory Board, regarding the 2017
Agreement.
Request for Production No.5 Please produce a comp
Preview
FILED 3/20/2024 5:38 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’ MOTION TO COMPEL FOR THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION l Summary of Argument Oliver Krautscheid, on behalf of Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC (“Defendants”), has been trying to negotiate a settlement between Dr. Detlef Mader, Defendants’ former President who approved all of the transactions at issue in this litigation, and Defendants, which directly implicates the claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production (the “Third RFPs”) seeking information regarding Dr. Mader’s employment and resignation; Krautscheid’s work for Defendants; Defendants’ and Krautscheid’s communications with Dr. Mader; and Defendants’ claims and attempts to settle with Dr. Mader. In response, Defendants asserted improper objections and failed to produce any documents. Defendants offered to make documents available for inspection but refused to state if they are responsive to any of the requests. Moreover, some of the documents sought should have been produced in compliance with the Court’s January 12 Order. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Courtto overrule Defendants’ improper objections and order Defendants to amend their responses and produce all responsive documents. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 1 of 13 I. Facts This is a dispute over Defendants’ default under multiple agreements, including loan agreements, and Defendants’ counterclaims related to compensation paid to Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Each of the agreements in dispute in this matter were agreed to and executed by Dr. Detlef Mader on behalf of Defendants. During the relevant time period, Dr. Detlef Mader was Defendants’ President and the CEO of Global Oil & Gas AG (“GOGAG’). Following Plaintiff Bernard Tubeileh’s departure as Defendants’ Manager in 2023, Dr. Mader remained as CEO of GOGAG and as Defendants’ President. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production on Defendants, seeking information regarding Dr. Mader’s employment, compensation, termination, and GOGAG’s acceptance of Dr. Mader’s appointment as Defendants’ President. See Ex. A (the “First RFPs”) at A.12, A.13. In December 2023, Mr. Tubeileh received a phone call from Dr. Mader. Dr. Mader informed Mr. Tubeileh of the following: 1 In September 2023 (during the pendency of this litigation, and near the time of the First RFPs), Oliver Krautscheid, working as “Chairman” of GOGAG, presented Dr. Mader with the alternative of either voluntarily resigning from his position as Defendants’ President or being officially dismissed by the Supervisory Board for case. Since September 29, 202[3], Dr. Mader is no longer a member of GOGAG’s management board or Defendants’ President. On September 29, 2023, Dr. Mader made “an offer of an amicable settlement” to GOGAG and Defendants regarding his departure as a member of GOGAG’s Executive Board and Defendants’ President. He asked for 500 euros per month in 2023 and 2024 and continuing through the term of a new consultancy contract to begin on January 1, 2025; payment of 40,000 euros per year for 2023 and 2024 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 2 of 13 (as compensation for his role as Defendants’ President); and payment of his health insurance and payroll accounting. Oliver Krautscheid, as “mediator”, tried to negotiate a solution between GOGAG, Defendants, and Dr. Mader.1 Krautscheid sent Dr. Mader a draft termination agreement on November 21, 2023. Dr. Mader reiterated his September 29, 2023 offer and stated that he needed “the above-mentioned financing for my continued unrestricted cooperation in all matters.” Krautscheid rejected Dr. Mader’s offer and offered the compensation detailed in the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung. See Ex. B, December 23, 2023 email from Dr. Detlef Mader to Bernard Tubeileh with attached AUFHEBUNGSVEREINBARUNG?. Dr. Mader forwarded Mr. Tubeileh the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung provided to him by Oliver Krautscheid. He asked Mr. Tubeileh to “treat the attached documents as strictly confidential and do not pass them on to third parties under any circumstances.” See Ex. B.12. The aufhebungsvereinbarung, which was requested and drafted on behalf of GOGAG and Defendants, sent by Mr. Krautscheid to Dr. Mader contains the following relevant provisions: 1 Dr. Mader “has been appointed Supervisory President of [Defendants] in 2021”; 2. Dr. Mader resigned from GOGAG’s management board and his duties as Defendants’ President “with a statement dated September 29, 2023”; On November 22/28, 2016, GOGAG and Dr. Mader executed a Management Board Service Agreement and subsequently entered into amendment agreements, which was prematurely terminated by mutual agreement at the end of November 30, 2023; 1 Defendants have indicated that they control Oliver Krautscheid. Mr. Krautscheid attends hearings in this matter by Zoom, presumably on behalf of Defendants. Mr. Krautscheid’s deposition is currently noticed for April 25, 2024. 2 The German version of the email and attachment are attached to this Motion as Ex. B.1-B.8 (as produced to Defendants). The certified English translation is attached to this Motion as Ex. B.9-B.17. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 3 of 13 GOGAG and Dr. Mader wish to “agree on an early termination by mutual consent of all contractual relationships” with GOGAG and its affiliates, “in particular [Defendants]”; Dr. Mader will “be available free of charge” to his successors and GOGAG’s Supervisory Board “for the provision of information in connection with his previous activities with [Defendants]” and “make all declarations and perform all cooperative acts that are necessary and/or useful”; Dr. Mader would receive a lump sum of 3,000 euros “to settle any claims made by [Dr. Mader] against [GOGAG], in particular [Defendants]”; Even after conclusion of the aufhebungsvereinbarung, Dr. Mader would continue “a) to safeguard the interests of [GOAG and Defendants]; b) to behave loyally towards [GOAG and Defendants]; and c) to support the assertion of claims for damages and other claims against other persons free of charge and in this respect to cooperate in particular in the clarification of facts arising from and in connection with the assertion of and defense against claims by third parties [aka Plaintiffs] against [GOGAG and Defendants]”; and Dr. Mader will not make any “statements, in particular to employees and business partners, including those who have already left” [aka, Tubeileh] without “prior consultation” with GOGAG; this includes “all communication between [Dr. Mader] and employees and business partners, including those who have already left the company” [aka Tubeileh]. See Ex. B.13-B.16. The draft aufhebungsvereinbarung also includes a confidentiality provision which applies “without restriction and in particular also to employees and managers of the company and its affiliated companies, in particular [Defendants], who have already left the company [aka Tubeileh].” See Ex. B.16-B.17. This aufhebungsvereinbarung is drafted to expressly prohibit Dr. Mader from sharing its existence with Plaintiffs; presumably, had Plaintiffs not been informed of these communications by Dr. Mader, Defendants would never have informed Plaintiffs of their existence. On February 6, 2024, Plaintiffs produced the email from Dr. Mader along with the attached aufhebungsvereinbarung. See Ex. B, BT305279-BT305286. On the same day, Plaintiffs served their Third RFPs. See Ex. C. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 4 of 13 Defendants served their responses to the Third RFPs on March 7, 2024 (the “Responses’). See Ex. D. Defendants’ Responses lodged fourteen “General Reservations” and objected to “the time and place for production” for each request. Ex. D.4, J 13. Defendants offered to make documents available for inspection in their “General Reservations” but did not identify to which requests, if any, these documents are allegedly responsive. /d. at 14. Defendants lodged inappropriate “equally available” objections to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32. D.6-D10. Defendants failed to produce any documents but, without requesting an extension from Plaintiffs or the Court, indicated that they would “produce [any/any additional] responsive documents within the next thirty days.” /d. at Request Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, and 32. Plaintiffs contacted Defendants about the deficiencies with their Responses. Defendants refused to clarify their positions, withdraw their objections, timely produce documents, or identify to which requests, if any, the documents to be made available for production are allegedly responsive. See Ex. E, Emails between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ Counsel regarding Third RFPs. I. Argument & Authoritie: All of the information requested by Plaintiffs in the Third RFPs is discoverable. Defendants objections should be overruled and the Court should compel production of responsive documents, as follows: A. Responsive Documents Previously Ordered to Be Produced The Court previously ordered Defendants to produce documents which would include the information requested in the Third RFPs; however, Defendants have not done so, despite the Court's Order and specific requests. Dr. Mader’s Management Board Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 5 of 13 Service Agreement and amended agreements, resignation statement, and the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung, are responsive to Request Nos. 73 and 76 from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Production to Defendants. See Ex. A.12-A.13. The Court overruled Defendants’ objections to Request Nos. 73 and 76 and ordered Defendants to produce responsive documents on or before February 15, 2024; however, to date, Defendants have not produced these documents. See January 12, 2024 Order, attached as Ex. F, at F2, F.3. Therefore, because these documents are responsive, because the Court previously ordered Defendants to produce them, and because Defendants failed to produce them, Plaintiffs ask the Court to, once again, order Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Request Nos. 73 and 76 from the First RFPs. B. Defendants’ Improper Objection to Time and Place To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely objection in writing and state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request. /n re Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 842, 847 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (citing /n re Cl Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002); Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a)). Defendants failed to provide any legal or factual basis for their objection to the time and place for production in the Responses. See Ex. D. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Defendants’ counsel for the basis for Defendants’ objection to the time and place of production in response to all of the Third RFPs, and Defendants’ counsel responded as follows: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 6 of 13 1 You've objected to the time and place for production with no basis and haven't provided a reasonable time and place for complying with the requests; your responses do not comply with Rule 193 or 196. What’s the basis of the objection to the time and place for production? Please withdraw this objection and produce all responsive documents, as required. fe dui of h liant th Please see Rule 19 which Ex. E.3. To the contrary, Defendants have not complied with the Rules. Defendants have not articulated any basis for their objection to the time and place for production, in violation of Rule 193.2(a). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). Defendants have not soughtan extension of time from either Plaintiffs or the Court to extend the timeframe to produce responsive documents; responsive documents were due on March 7, 2024. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2, 196.3(a). Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ improper, baseless objection to the time and place of production and compel Defendants to produce all responsive documents to the Third RFPs. C. Documents for Inspection and Copying General Reservation 14 to Defendants’ Responses indicates that Defendants will make “documents” available for inspection and copying; notably, Defendants do not say that they will make responsive documents available for inspection and copying. See Ex. D.4 at J 14. Defendants’ Responses to the individual requests for production do not indicate that Defendants are in possession of responsive documents that will be made available for inspection and copying. See Ex. D.4-D.10. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Defendants to which responses the hard-copy documents are responsive; Defendants’ counsel declined to respond, stating as follows: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 7 of 13 You say that you'll make documents available to Plaintiffs for inspection and copying. Do you have documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of RFPs that you're offering to make available? If so, please let me know which specific requests they are responsive to, and where and when we can inspect them. n 1e1 ns} n fe rds hi ire rod d in: on i in uir See Rule 196.3(c). Moreover, I note that you have not Ex. E.3. Defendants offer to make hard-copy documents available for inspection and copying; however, Defendants refuse to tell Plaintiffs if there are responsive documents in hard copy that have not been made available to Plaintiffs electronically, or to which requests the hard copy documents are responsive. See Ex. G.1, February 26, 2024 email from J. Sindelar, in connection with the First RFPs; Ex. H.1, March 12, 2024 email from C. Bowline (with no response from Defendants), in connection with the First RFPs; Ex. E.3 (in connection with the Third RFPs). While it is true that a party may produce documents and tangible things as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, a basic tenet of the rules is that any documents produced for inspection must be requested. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2; 196.3. Defendants have not described what these hard-copy documents are, or to which requests those documents may be responsive (if any)°. See Ex. D.4-D.10; Ex. E.3; Ex. G.1; Ex. H.1. It is Defendants’ duty to perform a diligent search and respond, for each request, to state whether 1) production or inspection will be permitted, 2) the requested items are being served with the response, 3) production or inspection will take place at a specified time and place; or 4) no items identified after a diligent search that are responsive to the 3 This is also one of the bases of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, For Sanctions, and to Show Cause, filed on February 26, 2024, as to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, which is currently set for hearing before the Court on April 8, 2024. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 8 of 13 request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2(b). Defendants have produced more than a million pages of documents, the majority of which are not responsive to any of Plaintiffs’ requests and were not requested by Plaintiffs. Defendants seek to impermissibly shift the burden of the search for responsive documents to Plaintiffs by offering for inspection documents that Defendants have not reviewed for responsiveness (or, Defendants have reviewed the hard-copy documents, but have impermissibly not told Plaintiffs to which requests they are responsive, if any). Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to amend their Responses to indicate to which, if any, of the Third RFPs Defendants have responsive hard-copy documents that they have not produced, or will not produce, electronically. D. Improper Equally Accessible Objection in Response to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32 In response to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32, Defendants have objected that Plaintiffs seek documents “already in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.” See Ex. D.6-D.10. However, an “objection that the information sought is equally available is an invalid objection. Texas law does not allow a party to evade discovery requests by simply asserting that the other party already has the same information... Requiring your opponent to produce certain documents enables the party seeking discovery to activate the automatic authentication rights provided by Rule 193.7.” See In re Sting Soccer Group, LP, 2017 WL 5897454, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.). Defendants have indicated that they “have not asserted this as a basis for withholding any documents or responding to any requests,” but they have not withdrawn their objections and they have not produced any documents. See Ex. D.6-D.10; Ex. E.4. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ invalid equally available Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 9 of 13 objections and compel Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Request Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 32, including the draft aufhebungsvereinbarung produced by Plaintiffs as BT305282-305286. E. Improper Objections for Request Nos. 5-10 and Oliver Krautscheid Request Nos. 5-10 seek information regarding Oliver Krautscheid, the German national that replaced Mr. Tubeileh as manager for Defendants (including, importantly, Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC (“GOG Fields”)), and his ability to work in the United States. In response to Request Nos. 5-10, Defendants have incorporated their objections from Request No. 88 from Plaintiffs’ First RFPs and stand on these objections. See Ex. D.5-D.6. Defendants object that the requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek documents are not relevant to the claims or defenses nor reasonably proportional to the needs of the case, and seek information that would violate the General Data Protection Regulation. See Ex. |, excerpts of Defendants’ Responses to First RFPs, at I.8. The Court sustained Plaintiffs’ objection to Request No. 88 at the hearing on January 5, 2024. See Ex. F.2. Defendants produced Global_14362-14401, the GOG Fields Employment Handbook (the “Handbook”) 4. See Ex. J. The Handbook details procedures for hiring employees, and states that GOG Fields is “committed to employing only United States citizens and aliens who are authorized to work in the United States.” Ex. J.6 (Global_0014367). The Handbook further provides that each new employee, as a 4 Defendants’ produced this document as “Confidential” under the Agreed Protective Order. A blank documents is being filed, and Plaintiffs will provide the Court with a copy of Global_14362-14401 for review in accordance with the Agreed Protective Order. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 10 of 13 condition of employment, must complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 and present documentation establishing identity and employment eligibility. /d. The Handbook provides that GOG Fields may participate in E-Verify, and that pursuant to E- Verify, GOG Fields provides the Social Security Administration, and if necessary, the Department of Homeland Security with information from each new employee’s Form |-9 to confirm work authorization. /d. Unlike previous Request No. 88, which sought all documents showing any work permit or visa without particularity, Request Nos. 5-10 seek the very information detailed in the Handbook produced by Defendants. See Ex. C.5; Ex. J.6. These requests are narrowly tailored and seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of this case; they are not overly broad or unduly burdensome. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Mr. Krautscheid are detailed in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition at paragraphs 27 through 34, and the information sought by Request Nos. 5-10 pertains to the parties’ respective breach of contract claims (including Count IV from the Third Amended Petition). See Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition and Application for Declaratory Judgment filed 11/15/2023. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ objections and order them to produce all documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 5-10 from the Third RFPs. F. Failure to Produce Documents Defendants failed to produce any documents in response to the Third RFPs. The deadline for Defendants to produce responsive documents was March 7, 2024 (30 days from service). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2; 196.3. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to produce all documents responsive to the Third RFPs. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 11 of 13 IV. Conclusion In conclusion, Defendants failed to produce documents previously ordered to be produced by the Court. In addition, in their Responses to the Third RFPs, Defendants asserted improper objections; objected to the time and place for production without stating any basis; and failed to produce any documents. Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to overrule Defendants’ improper objections and order Defendants to amend their Responses to the Third RFPs and produce all responsive documents. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC respectfully pray that this Court 1) overrule Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production, and 2) order Defendants to a) amend their responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production, b) identify to which specific requests for production, if any, any hard-copy documents which have not been previously produced are responsive, and c) produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production (and Request Nos. 73 and 76 from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, as previously ordered by the Court); and 3) further grant Plaintiffs all such further relief, whether in law or in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 12 of 13 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 kvanstory@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 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE In accordance with Local Rule 2.07 of Dallas County, the undersigned counsel corresponded with counsel for Defendants by email on March 13 and multiple times on March 18. Counsel substantively discussed the items and despite best efforts, no agreements have been reached. Accordingly, the matter is submitted to the Court for a hearing and a ruling. /s/ Courtney Bowline Courtney G. Bowline CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, | certify that on March 20, 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. /s/ Courtney Bowline Courtney G. Bowline Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production Page 13 of 13 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 BERNARD TUBEILEH’S AND SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC AND GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC TO: Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Christopher M. Staine, Crowe & Dunlevy, 2525 McKinnon St., Suite 425, Dallas, TX 75201, and Joshua L. Fellenbaum, Michael C. Zellers, Jeffrey Sindelar., and Stephanie A. Rzepka, 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100, Cleveland, OH 44113. Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC submit the following requests for production to Defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC to be produced at the undersigned counsel's office and permit Plaintiffs, through their designated counsel of record, to inspect and copy the documents identified in these requests within thirty (30) days after service. Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 1 Exhibit A.1 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 kvanstory@brianlauten.com 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 414-0996 telephone (214) 744-3015 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | certify that on September 18, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(a). /s/ Courtney G. Bowline Courtney G. Bowline Berard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 2 Exhibit A.2 DEFINITIONS “GOG Texas” refers to Defendant Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr. Detlef Mader and Lori Land. “GOG Fields” refers to Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr. Detlef Mader and Lori Land. “GOGAG’ refers to Global Oil & Gas AG and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Dr. Detlef Mader, Oliver Krautscheid, and any member of its supervisory board (including Stefan ten Doornkaat, Matthias Gaebler, and Witold Kolodziej. “Defendants” means GOG Texas and GOG Fields. “Tubeileh” refers to Plaintiff Bernard Tubeileh, and any and all agents, representatives, or other persons subject to his control or representing him in any capacity or for any purpose. “Sinostar” refers to Sinostar Investments LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose. “GDT” means Global Derivative Trading GmbH, and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to their control or representing them in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Thorsten Wagner. “Blackhorn” means Blackhorn USA, LLC, Blackhorn Group, LLC, and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to their control or representing them in any capacity or for any purpose, including but not limited to Logan Wheat. The “2017 Agreement” means the July 29, 2017 Employment Agreement between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG. 10 The “2019 Agreement” means the March 31, 2019 Employment Agreement between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG. 11 The “2020 Agreement” means the September 1, 2020 Agreement, as amended in May 2021, between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG. Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 3 Exhibit A.3 12 The “2022 Agreement” means the June 10, 2022 Agreement between Tubeileh, GOG Fields, and GOGAG. 13 The “PSA” means the Purchase and Sale Agreement effective September 10, 2021, under which GOG Texas agreed to purchase all of Tubeileh’s ORRI interests in vertical and horizontal wells in certain parts of Kentucky in which it participated, as amended by the Amendment dated November 12, 2021, and the Second Amendment dated September 9, 2022; the Purchase and Sale Agreement effective October 5, 2022, under which GOG Texas agreed to purchase all of Tubeileh’s ORRI interests in vertical and horizontal wells in Clay County, Illinois; the Purchase and Sale Agreement effective November 1, 2022, under which GOG Texas agreed to purchase all of Tubeileh’s ORRI interests in vertical and horizontal wells in Washington County, Illinois. 14 The “February Sinostar Loan Agreement” means the February 15, 2023 Loan Agreement in the amount of $1,227,917.61 between Sinostar, GOG Texas, and GOG Fields. 15 The “Tubeileh Loan Agreement” means the March 15, 2023 Loan Agreement in the amount of $1,861,359.41 between Tubeileh, GOG Texas, and GOG Fields. 16 The “Tubeileh Note” means the March 15, 2023 Promissory Note in the amount of $1,861 ,359.41 from GOG Texas and GOG Fields payable to Tubeileh. 17 The “March Sinostar Loan Agreement” means the March 17, 2023 Loan Agreement in the amount of $405,598.43 between Sinostar, GOG Texas, and GOG Fields. 18 The “Sinostar Note” means the March 17, 2023 Promissory Note in the amount of $405,598.43 from GOG Texas and GOG Fields payable to Sinostar. 19 The “Lawsuit” shall refer to the above-styled lawsuit, Cause No. DC-23-07534, pending in the 68th Civil District Court in Dallas County, Texas. 20 “Petition” means Plaintiff's Original Petition filed in the Lawsuit and all amendments/supplements thereto. 21 “Answer” means Defendants’ Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Original Petition and Counterclaim filed in the Lawsuit and all amendments/supplements thereto. 22 “Document” means all originals and non-identical copies of any papers, books, accounts, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, recordings, compact discs, other data compilations from which information can be obtained and translated, if necessary, by you through detection devices into Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC. Page 4 Exhibit A.4 reasonably usable form, and tangible things. As used herein, the term “document” or “documents” includes without limitation the following items regardless of origin or location, whether printed or recorded or filmed or reproduced by any other mechanical process, or written or produced by hand, whether or not claimed to be privileged against discovery on any ground, and whether an original, master or copy, namely: contracts, letters, correspondence, cablegrams, telegrams, telexes, communications, intra-company communications, telephone records and notations, meeting and conference minutes, notations and lists of persons attending, invoices, work orders, summaries and records of personal conversations or interviews, ledgers, journals and other formal or informal books of record and account, books, manuals, publications and diaries, laboratory and engineering reports and notebooks, blueprints, charts, plans, sketches, drawings, photographs, reports and/or summaries of investigations, opinions and reports of consultants; computer data, computer printouts, computer programs, electronic mail, tape recordings, video recordings, bulletins, instructions, financial statements, reports, memoranda, notes, copies of reproductions of the foregoing upon which notations in writing have been made which do not appear on the originals, and any other information containing writing, paper or tangible items in the possession, custody or control of Defendants or Defendants’ attorney. 23 “Computer-based information.” In those instances when requested information is stored only on software or other data compilations, the responding party should either produce the raw data along with all codes and programs for translating it into usable form, or produce the information in a finished usable form that includes all necessary glossaries, keys, and indices for interpretation of the material. 24 The word “or” is inclusive and refers to any one or more of the disjoined words or phrases and the terms any and all include each and every. 25 “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, or any other type of entity. 26 “Concerning” or “concern” means embodying, pertaining to, reflecting, involving, constituting, comprising, discussing, evidencing, relating to, consisting of, or having any logical or factual connection whatsoever with the subject matter in question. 27 “Communications,” as used herein, means and includes a face-to-face meeting or a communication by means of a telephone, radio, or other similar means of verbal transmission of information, as well as all forms of written communication, including email, facsimile, text messages, and other electronic means of communication. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD Unless otherwise specified by the request, these requests cover the time period Bemard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 5 Exhibit A.5 from January 1, 2017 to the present. TRCP 193.7 NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, please be advised that Plaintiffs hereby put Defendants on actual notice that they intend to use all documents produced in response to these discovery requests, as well as any later propounded discovery requests, at the time of trial or at any hearing. If it is your position that any document you have produced is not self-authenticating, please provide your objections within 10 days of the document being produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See TEx. R. Civ. P. 193.7. REQUEST FOR ELECTRONIC INFORMATION Pursuant to Rule 196.4, these requests specifically seek responsive electronically stored Information and any and all other forms of “E-Discovery,” which Plaintiffs seek in Native Format. Berard Tubeileh’s and Sinostar Investments LLC's First Set of Requests for Production to Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC Page 6 Exhibit A.6 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Request for Production No. 1 Please produce a complete copy of the 2017 Agreement, including any amendments and supplements. Request for Production No. 2 Please produce all communications between Tubeileh, on the one hand, and GOGAG, on the other, regarding the 2017 Agreement. Request for Production No. 3 Please produce all communications between Tubeileh, on the one hand, and GOG Fields, on the other, regarding the 2017 Agreement. Request for Production No. 4 Please produce all communications between Dr. Detlef Mader and GOGAG, including members of the Supervisory Board, regarding the 2017 Agreement. Request for Production No.5 Please produce a comp