arrow left
arrow right
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
  • KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP- NORTH TEXAS  vs.  WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT document preview
						
                                

Preview

FILED DALLAS COUNTY 12/24/2014 12:08:19 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC-12-12486 KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP -- § IN THE DISTRICT COURT NORTH TEXAS § § Plaintiff, § § v. § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, § LLC d/b/a LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS § § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW KJC Auto Title Loan Corp—North Texas (“Plaintiff”) and files this Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition, Objection to Notice of Deposition, and Motion for Protective Order (the “Motion”) and in support thereof would respectfully show as follows: I. Background 1. In connection with the scheduling of additional oral depositions in this matter, on December 22, 2014 Wellshire Financial Services, LLC d/b/a LoanStar Title Loans (“Defendant”) served the following: a) Amended Notice of the Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Dan Borchardt for January 6, 2015 and a Subpoena to Dan Borchardt (the “Borchardt Notice”); b) Notice of the Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Clifton H. Morris, III for January 5, 2015 (the “Morris Notice”); and c) Notice of the Oral and Videotaped Deposition of KJC Auto Title Loan Corp.—North Texas for January 15, 2015 (the “Corporate Notice”). A true and correct copy of the foregoing Notices is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 1 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc 2. Plaintiff does not object to the Borchardt Notice. However, although counsel for Plaintiff is available January 5, 2015, Clifton H. Morris, III (“Morris”), President of Defendant, is unavailable that week due to travel. Due to the unavailability of Morris on January 5, 2015, Plaintiff hereby objects to the Morris Notice. Pursuant to Rule 199.4, Plaintiff files this objection within three (3) business days of the Morris Notice. 3. Plaintiff previously asserted a trade secret privilege in Plaintiff’s written discovery responses and in oral depositions. Both the Morris Notice and the Corporate Notice indicate that the depositions are “limited to topics that were the subject of the trade secret objections from the deposition of July 17, 2013.” The Court issued an Order dated December 16, 2013 which overruled Plaintiff’s assertion of a trade secret privilege, “except to the extent of revealing the manner in which compiled data is distributed to Plaintiff’s employees.” 4. In compliance with said Order, Plaintiff served amended discovery responses. Defendant did not file any motion to compel regarding Plaintiff’s amended responses. II. Motion to Quash Morris Notice 5. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the Court grant Plaintiff’s request for an Order quashing the Morris Notice, and subject to the Court’s determination of Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Protection herebelow, issue an Order mandating that the deposition of Clifton H. Morris, III be scheduled at a date, time, and location agreeable to all parties. III. Objections to Morris Notice and Corporate Notice 6. Further, and in addition to the foregoing Motion to Quash Morris Notice, Plaintiff objects to the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice for the following reasons: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc a) The Order specified that Plaintiff’s trade secret privilege was not overruled in its entirety. Both the Morris Notice and the Corporate Notice indicate that the depositions are “limited to topics that were the subject of the trade secret objections from the deposition of July 17, 2013.” Plaintiff objects to the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice to the extent the Notices attempt to solicit testimony which is not covered by the Court’s Order, such as the “manner in which compiled data is distributed to Plaintiff’s employees.” b) Plaintiff has already taken the depositions of Morris and the corporate representative for Plaintiff, and will take the deposition of Dan Borchardt on January 6, 2015. Morris and Karen Graham (“Graham”), Plaintiff’s Controller and corporate representative, gave oral depositions in this matter approximately a year and a half ago on July 17, 2013. Plaintiff objects that the Morris and Graham depositions revealed that Mr. Borchardt developed the trade secret, and that only he and his wife were aware of how the trade secret worked. Defendant’s prior notice of deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative for July 17, 2013 (the “2013 Corporate Notice”) included a list of topics to be covered in said deposition. The list attached as Exhibit A to the Corporate Notice contains four (4) topics which are identical to topics listed in the 2013 Corporate Notice. However, in her 2013 deposition as corporate representative, Graham already testified that she did not have knowledge of certain topics included in the 2013 Corporate Notice which are identical to those listed on Exhibit “A” to the Corporate Notice. Further, Morris testified that he did not know the details of Plaintiff’s claimed trade secret, but instead that Dan Borchardt and Mr. Borchardt’s wife were the only ones who knew this information: Q: Are you saying that you and Dan Borchardt are the only ones who know of the trade secret? MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 3 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc A: I don’t know how he does it. He’s the only one who knows the trade secret. Q: And Dan developed this trade secret? A: Yes. [Morris Deposition, p. 31, l. 4-9]; and Q: I want you to identify the ways that KJC uses to keep this trade secret? A: Only two people know about it. Q: And is that you and Mr. Borchardt? A: I don’t know about it either. It’s Dan and his wife, Paige. We’ve purposely kept it with just two people in the company knowing it. [Morris Deposition, p. 34, l. 7-13]. Morris has already testified that he did not know the details of the trade secret, and that Dan Borchardt, whom Defendant is deposing on January 6, 2015, is the witness with that knowledge. Therefore, Plaintiff objects that the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice are intended only to harass Plaintiff and its President, and to cause Plaintiff to incur unnecessary expenses and attorney’s fees. c) Defendant was dilatory in seeking additional discovery from Plaintiff, and now imposes an unnecessary burden on Plaintiff. The Court issued its Order concerning Plaintiff’s asserted trade secret privilege on December 19, 2013. However, Defendant waited approximately a year, and until approximately thirty (30) days prior to the deadline for the completion of discovery during the holiday season, before requesting additional depositions from Morris and a corporate representative. The Corporate Notice requests Plaintiff to provide a representative who can testify concerning: “the identity of all WFS’ customers whose identity MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 4 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc was identified by KJC through motor vehicle records, including the date KJC accessed motor vehicle records relating to that person and the means by which KJC obtained the license plate information (or numbers) of each such person.” Plaintiff objects that the foregoing request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff avers that it has no representative with knowledge of this information, and that it would take countless hours of investigation by Plaintiff to review the thousands of customer names contained in spreadsheets produced by Plaintiff to Defendant herein to attempt to determine which of those customers had previously been customers of Defendant. See Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Defendant’s First Amended Response to Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories in which Plaintiff responds, “Plaintiff generally has no way of identifying the requested names because Plaintiff does not regularly track or maintain the reason(s) why a prospective customer visits Plaintiff’s store locations in order to utilize Plaintiff’s services.” Plaintiff objects that this request is unduly burdensome regardless of the context, but especially on short notice of less than thirty (30) days during the holidays. Another topic contained in Exhibit A to the Corporate Notice concerns “KJC’s actions in accessing motor vehicle records.” Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 of Defendant’s Third Amended Response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, served in compliance with the Order, specify that “Plaintiff does not access motor vehicle records” but instead used information obtained from DataTrax, a third party provider of public information. Further, Morris testified in his deposition that the only time Plaintiff accesses “DMV records” is to validate whether there are any active liens on a customer’s car, all pursuant to a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation. See, Morris Deposition, p. 15, l. 5-22. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 5 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc d) Plaintiff objects to the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice as dilatory tactics designed to delay the final disposition of this matter. Plaintiff objects that in the Motion to Withdraw and to Substitute New Counsel filed by Defendant on October 13, 2014, Defendant’s counsel represented to the Court that the substitution of counsel was not sought for delay. However, at the eleventh hour, in the last thirty (30) days of the discovery period as agreed to by the parties, Defendant has already taken three (3) oral depositions with a fourth scheduled for January 6, 2015, and served a Third and Fourth Request for Production. Plaintiff objects that the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice constitute an attempt by Defendant to delay these proceedings and to harass Plaintiff with a late flurry of discovery designed to disrupt Plaintiff’s business operations, and cause Plaintiff to incur unnecessary expenses and attorney’s fees. III. Motion for Protective Order 7. In light of the foregoing objections which highlight the dilatory and unduly burdensome nature of the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice, Plaintiff requests the Court sustain its objections and enter an order protecting Plaintiff from the oral depositions sought by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that its objections be sustained and that this Motion be in all things granted, and for all such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled Respectfully submitted, HOW FRELS ROHDE WOODS & DUKE A Professional Corporation By: _/s/ Mark H. How__________________ MARK H. HOW MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 6 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc State Bar No. 10059900 mhow@2027law.com MARK FRELS State Bar No. 07438200 BUDDY APPLE State Bar No. 24059387 2027 Young Street Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 720-2220 Telephone (214) 720-2240 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE This is to certify that counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant discussed the Morris Notice and Corporate Notice in person at oral depositions on December 22, 2014, and that no consensus regarding the Notices could be reached. _/s/ Mark H. How_________________ MARK H. HOW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing is being served on all counsel of record via facsimile and/or electronic service on the 24th day of December, 2014. _/s/ Mark H. How_________________ MARK H. HOW MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 7 N:\KJC\Loan Star - 2012 Suit\PLDG\Motion for Protection - Morris and KJC Rep.doc NO. DC-12-12486 KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP -NORTH 3 IN THE DISTRICT COURT TEXAS 3 3 Plaint$$ 3 3 v. 8 OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 3 WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 8 D/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS 3 3 Dejhdant. 3 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AMENDED NOTICE OF THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DAN BORCHARDT To: Dan Borchardt, 8307 Ashcroft Dr., Houston, Texas 77096- 1003. Plaintiff, KJC Auto Title Loan Corp - North Texas, by and through its attorneys of record, Mark H. How and Buddy Apple, How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC, 2027 Young Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. The oral and videotaped deposition of DAN BORCHAFWT will be taken by counsel for defendant, Wellshire Financial Services, LLC d/b/a LoanStar Title Loans, at the law offices of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, 37th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, on Tuesday, January 6,2015, beginning at 10:OO a.m. The deposition will be videotaped and transcribed and will be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths from Carlisle Reporting (713-864-4443). The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. Respectfully submitted, SUTHEFtLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP By: /s/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson State Bar No. 24046165 daniel.iohnson@,s,sutherland.corn Stephany Olsen-LeGrand State Bar No. 24065604 stephany.olsenlegrand@sutherland.com Robert Lemus State Bar No. 24052225 robert.lemus@sutherland com 1001 Fannin, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 470-6100 Facsimile: (713) 654-1301 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/COUNTER- PLAINTIFFS WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERWCES, LLCD/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served all counsel of record with a copy of the foregoing Notice of Oral and Videotaped Deposition in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P.21 and 21a, as follows: Mark H. How Buddy Apple How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC 2027 Young Street Dallas, Texas 75201 DATED: December 22.2014 /s/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson NO. DC-12-12486 KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP -NORTH § IN THE DISTRICT COURT TEXAS § § Plaint8 § § v. 5 OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 5 D/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS 5 § Defendants. $5 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUBPOENA TO DAN BORCHARDT REOUIRING APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION THE STATE OF TEXAS Issued on December 22,2014 WITNESS: DAN BORCHARDT 8307 Ashcroft Dr. Houston, Texas 77096-1003 TO ANY SHERIFF OR CONSTABLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPOENAS AS PROVIDED IN TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON DAN BORCHARDT, who may be served at 8307 Ashcroft Dr., Houston, Texas 77096-1003, to appear at the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, 37"' Floor, Houston, Texas 77002 (713- 470-6100) on Tuesday, January 6,2015, at 9:00 a.m., to give testimony in the above-entitled and numbered cause at a deposition and remain in attendance from day to day until lawfully discharged. The subpoena was issued at the request of Defendant, Wellshire Financial Semcies, LLC d/b/a LoanStar Title Loans, whose attorney of record is: Daniel Johnson ex as State Bar No. 24046165 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713-470-6100 Facsimile: 713-654-1301 Email: daniel.johnson@sutherland.com CONTEMPT: FAILURE BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA SERVED UPON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT FROM WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH. TEX. R. CIV. P. 176.8(a). Texas State Bar 24046165 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLC 1001 Fannin.Street, Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713-470-6100 Facsimile: 713-654-1301 Email: daniel.johnson@sutherland.com SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS DEPOSITION RETURN Came to hand the day of December, 2014, at o'clock . M . , and executed the day of ,201-, at o'clock . M., by delivering to the within named DAN BORCHARDT in person at in County, Texas, a true copy of this Subpoena, and tendering said witness the sum of $ By Deputy: person who is not a party to the suit, and is not less than 18 years of age ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA BY WITNESS PER RULE 176 T.R.C.P. I, the undersigned witness named in the Subpoena, acknowledge receipt of a copy thereof, and hereby accept service of the attached Subpoena, and will appear at said location on said date and time directed in this Subpoena. Rule 176.8(n) Contempt. Fnilrcre by any person witliout ndequnte excuse to obey n subpoeizn served upon tltnt person mny be deemed n contempt of the court from wlzich tlze subpoena is issued or n district court it1 the county in wlzich the subpoeizn is served, nnd may be punislzed by fine or conjiizement, or botlz. Signature of Witness Date ...............................................................'.............., Not executed as to the witness DAN BORCHARDT for the following reasons: FEE FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENA: $ NO. DC-12-12486 KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP -NORTH § IN THE DISTRICT COURT TEXAS 4 § v. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC § D/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS § § Defendant. 8 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CLIFTON H. >IOHlUS, I11 To: Plaintiff, KJC Auto Title Loan Corp - North Texas, by and through its attorneys of record, Mark H. How and Buddy Apple, How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC, 2027 Young Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. The oral and videotaped deposition of CLIFTON H. MORRIS, 111, will be taken by counsel for defendant, Wellshire Financial Services, LLC d/b/a LoanStar Title Loans, at the law offices of How Fres Rohde Woods & Duke, 2027 Young Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, on Monday, January 5, 2015, beginning at 10:OO a.m., or at other such time and place agreed upon by the parties. This deposition is limited to topics that were the subject of the trade secret objections from the deposition of July 17,2013. The deposition will be videotaped and transcribed and will be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths from Carlisle Reporting (713-864-4443). The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. Respectfully submitted, SUTHElUAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP By: /s/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson State Bar No. 24046165 danieljohnson@sutherland.com Stephany Olsen-LeGrand State Bar No. 24065604 stephany. olsenlegrand@sutherland com Robert Lemus State Bar No. 24052225 robert.lemus@sutherland.com 1001 Fannin, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 470-6100 Facsimile: (713) 654-1301 ATTOXNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/COUNTER- PLAINTIFFS WELLSHIRE FZNANCUL SERVICES, LLCD/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served all counsel of record with a copy of the foregoing Notice of Oral and Videotaped Deposition in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P.21 and 21a, as follows: Mark H. How Buddy Apple How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC 2027 Young Street Dallas, Texas 75201 DATED: December 22.2014 /s/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson NO. DC-12-12486 KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORP -NORTH 5 IN THE DISTRICT COURT TEXAS 5 5 Plaint@ § 5 OF DALLAS COUNTY. TEXAS WELLSHIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 5 D/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS 5 Defendant. 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN COW.-NORTH TEXAS To: Plaintiff, KJC Auto Title Loan Corp - North Texas, by and through its attorneys of record, Mark H. How and Buddy Apple, How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC, 2027 Young Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. The oral and videotaped deposition of the corporate representative of KJC AUTO TITLE LOAN CORE'.-NORTH TEXAS with the most knowledge concerning the topics set forth in Exhibit A will be taken by counsel for defendant, Wellshire Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Loanstar Title Loans, at the law offices of How Fres Rohde Woods & Duke, 2027 Young Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, on Thursday, January 15, 2015, beginning at 10:OO a.m., or at other such time and place agreed upon by the parties. This deposition is limited to topics that were the subject of the trade secret objections from the deposition of July 17, 2013, which are set forth in Exhibit A. The deposition will be videotaped and transcribed and will be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths from Carlisle Reporting (713-864-4443). The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. Respectfully submitted, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP By: Is/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson State Bar No. 24046165 danieljohnson@sutherland.corn Stephany Olsen-LeGrand State Bar No. 24065604 stephany. olsenlegrand@sutherland.com Robert Lemus State Bar No. 24052225 robert. lernus@sutherland.corn 1001 Fannin, Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 470-6 100 Facsimile: (713) 654-1301 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/COUNTER- PLAINTIFFS WELLSHIREFINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC D/B/A LOANSTAR TITLE LOANS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served all counsel of record with a copy of the foregoing Notice of Oral and Videotaped Deposition in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P.21 and 21a, as follows: Mark.H. How Buddy Apple How Frels Rohde Woods & Duke, PC 2027 Young Street Dallas, Texas 75201 DATED: December 22,2014 /s/ Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson EXHIBIT A Defendant Wellshire Financial Services, LLC, ("WFS") requests that Plaintiff KJC Auto Title Loan Corp.-North Texas ("KJC") designate and provide a corporate representative who has knowledge of the following matters to give a deposition and provide testimony: 1. KJC's actions in obtaining and identifying WFS' customers to approach them about paying off their loan with WFS. 2. KJC's actions in accessing motor vehicle records in connection with its business and the reasons for doing so and the means by which KJC does so. 3. The identify of all WFS' customers whose identity was identified by KJC through motor vehicle records, including the date KJC accessed motor vehicle records relating to that person and the means by which KJC obtained the license plate information (or numbers) of each such person. 4. The information KJC gives its employees and agents to identify and obtain the identify of WFS' customers. Please note that these topics were previously noticed for the July 17, 2013 corporate representative, and counsel for plaintiff specifically identified these topics as ones to which plaintiff objected and would not provide testimony. On December 16, 2013, the court issued an order which overruled plaintiffs trade secret objection. Thus, defendant intends to complete the deposition on these topics.