S-hiirI-EYMontgomery

I

'-

f'I-?_‘:j

--

-

2/26/2019
H

4. 50

FELICIAPITg-

._.

‘-.-'.._::D.ISTRICT

CLE

D'C‘918‘4045'5:

N63

'

ii

TINSTAR TITLE

-:

f";

Support and

_'

"IN THE'ID'ISTRICTCOURT 0F

INC. dba TinStar Litigation

.

Title
--

..
.

..

piamtlfij;

I

.

.
_

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

'

.mmmwmwmmwm

'

{,LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR &
SAMPSON LLP
Respondents
'

I

I

'44*“'J'UD'ICIALZDIST'RICT
_

PLAINTIFF’S-FOURTH

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

TO THE COURT:
TINSTAR TITLE,
files this its

Original Petition

INC. dba TinStar Litigation Support and Title (“TinStar”)

and would show the Court the

following:

Discovery Control Plan

-

I.

_

I

1.

Plaintiff

En this

designates Level

2,

TEX.

R. CIV. P. (“TRCP”), Rule 190.4 for discovéry

case and affirmatively pleads that

expedited-actions process of Rule 169

this suit is not

governed by the

TRCP.

Rule 47
H

"
?

:32

Pursuant to Rule 47, Texas Rules of

CIVII

Procedure (“TRCP”)

Plaintiff

alleges

I

lthat Plaintiff

seéks monetary

relief

over $1 000 000. 00 and

demands judgment

2'

.i-i-iifor

all

the other

relief to

which the

"

Plaintiff

itself entitled

'

-

Page1of26

-

.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

deems

_

AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

-

_

 Parties
I'
'

'

Plaintiff

3-;

TInStar

a duly licensed corporation

IS

in

the State of Texas

'

"

_

Defendant Lmebarger Goggan Blair& Sampson LLP

4

is

a

Law

Firm

in

Texas
_

I

3

'gI-iii'li-I-z'operatlng

as a Domestic Limited

Liability

Partnership (LLP) with

its

original

date

Of-filmgséptember 28 2001 wgth a prInCIpal place 0f business being 2700 Via
I
I

{Fortuna Drive.

Swte 500 Austin Texas 78746 Linebarger has appeared and

I

answered and

n'o

semce

is

necessary at

this time.

Jurisdiction

The Court has

5.

subject matterjurisdiction over the lawsuit because the

controversy exceeds this Court’s

minimum

amount

conducts business

in

.

jurisdictional requirements.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over both Defendant as Linebarger

6.

in

regularly

the State of Texas.

194mg
Venue

7.

is

proper

Dallas County, Texas, as this

in

is

the county

in

Which

all

0r a

substantial part of the évents or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred

pursuant to §15.002(a)(1),

TRCP.

"

Conditions Precedent

--

'

'-8"Pursuant to Rule 54 TRCP
'

i'f'ihave

an condatuons precedent have bee” performed 0‘

'

"

occurred

Vicarious Llabzlltv
_

T
..
_

3

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

___

Page20f26'_

__

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

 l'

Defendant Lmebarger engaged
Ithe'

any act 0r omissron the statement includes

in

acts or omissions by Defendant

its

pnncmals attorneys agents employees-

'

"

representatives and others with actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of

i

I

and bind the Defendant
I
I

I

'

'1

..

Facts
TInStar-Is-t-ateé

1O

that

it:

hé-s hé‘d

é long~term cofitinuing contractual arrangement

Z

Lmebarger

With

to perform

title

work on behalf

independent contractor with regard to

its

Texas, the Dallas Independent School

and other Dallas

collection service

representing

itself to

$10

delinquent tax accounts receivable for

billion in

Linebarger further publicly holds

itself

Linebarger

Is

an

arrangements with Dallas County,

District

be a professional

of Linebarger.

its

entities, publicly

managing more than

public—sector clientele.1

out as a representative of hundreds of

local faxing jurisdictions in the collection of their delinquent property taxes?"
I

Linebarger claims t0 have 46 offices
to

Los Angeles and San Diego,

in

multiple states from

California.

One

New York, New York

of their offices

Dallas,

is in

Texas.
11

.
._

TmStar has been the

ii-E'E'work

"

entity since

demanded by Lmebarger

Out

2007 handling the massive volume
of- its

Dallas Office. Procedurally,

of

title

when

'

3:-:.3""'Lmebarger

would

filé sait

to cellect

?'detalled'abstract of the property
t9
‘n'd

1

to

determine

if-

on unpaid taxes Linebarger had TinStar do a
ensure that they

there were lienholders

had.

the

comet pmperty

who neéded

t0

be contacted

See' http I/www igbs com/our-servuces/

zSe'e':

http/Iwwwlgbs com/our-services/coEEections/taxes/

.
_

Page 3
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

Of

26

 prior to

Linebarger Institutlng the foreclosure and potential sheriff’s sale of the

I

'

property subject to thé delinquent taxes.

Pursuant to the V'arioUs emails texts and other documents between the parties

12
I

I
I

the terms of the contract were clear.

It

was as simple as Linebarger would

forward the details of a delinquent property owner and TinStar would prepare the

'

I

-.
.

I_

e search 0n the property and the property owner.

When

Linebarger would

I

Il'I'liiresolfie

the matter eithér by settlement or judgment, then Linebarger
obligated to ensure that TinStar

was

was

paid $350.00 per property from th'e'cOurts or

from the owner of the property. TinStar was paid only when Linebarger collected
the unpaid taxes and costs.
13. Furthermore,

accordance with the contract between Linebarger and TinStar,

in

TinStar abstracted the
affidavits

titles

and submitted the abstracts

were prepared by Linebarger. Linebarger, as

The

to Linebarger.

part of the ongoing

contractual arrangement between the parties, always prepared the costaffidavits

and TinStar returned a notarized

After Oct. 2015,

affidavit to Linebarger.

and

at
\-

the direction and advice of Linebarger, electronic signatures were included by

..

:___l_l--;_:_.._Lmebarger

_ _n

fact

an employee ahd agent

of Linebarger Kevin

Franks began

'

5”-

5_.I‘-.'3'demandmg

':_"”'_'1':"-'-I'more

'::'

"iglmore

due

qurckly

m

volume of Work

to the

venfymg the

affidavits

that TinStar

Because

money, Kevm Franks adwsed Sandra

'lremotely’Inotanze

Franks

notified:

and forward the affidawts

Sandra Daus

that

it

to

and Sandra Daus move

of Linebarger' s rush to

was acceptable
Lmebarger

Lmebarger was gomg

for

Sandra

In addition,

to start

make
'

t0;

Kevin

notanzmg her

-

I

Page4of26'

.'
.

.
_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

 I

afildaVIts not

in

3

her presence

All

Sandra had

to

do was confirm her $Ignature

and Lmebarger would notarrze her Signatures and send copies back

-

to her for

'-

her

“Sandra Daus questioned

files

this

but Kevin Franks advised her thatwhat

she was domg-vifa'sfiapproved by Lmebarger and
1

t0

keep doing

it.

Inebarger prowded advsce to TmStar that TinStar could legally execute the

preSence

notwln the

;-_.;..-aff:dawts

of-

a notary

On nUmerous

occasions, Linebarger

I

liliz'lil_aictiuélly

ekecuted
'

th‘é

affadawts by electronically attaching

Isugnature to the affidavits or manually

stamping her

name

Sandra Daus’
to the verification

then notarized the affidavits with Sandra Daus never having signed the
nor being

in

employees
involved

the presence of a notary

when

scheme which TinStar and Sandra Daus

employees were

believed to be lega! and

proper based on the representations of Kevin Franks at Linebarger. By

example

Sandra Daus’ signature was notarized by an employee

oniy,

Linebarger not

in

Sandra’s presence and

-.

3.;

p

sentations and actions

Lmebarger

'-

---

,5
a;

See

record

in

Suit No.

way

of

of.

TX»15—

of times by Linebarger

and was

represented to TInStar as being perfectly acceptable. Relying on these
__

'

filed of

was repeated hundreds

02217.5 This conduct

affidavit

the affidavits were notarized by

of Linebarger. At least 10 different Linebarger

in this

and

i'n

TmStar followed Linebarger’ s advice and assisted

the remote notartzatlon of these abstracts

1b:t.-2:-attached hereto
Exhibit 3 attached hereto.-

'__

"
-

.

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page50f26'

 I

l.

I'iwzth

7'.'--'.'.-"__-':'":'TInStar

from

As

Linebarger

'a'

early as

September 13 2011 Edward Lopez wrote

and adVIsed Sandra DaUs that he Was having trouble

shersz’s sale so h'e‘ ‘Would not allow the property t0

t0

getting her

be SthCk

money

Off t0

the

I
'

and

for TinStar

and Sandra Daus

to “hang

In

there and

know

that

I

m
'

[Edward

opez] protecting your Interests
that-H-e-

II

was

protecting

TmStar S

”6-.

NotWIthstandmg that Edward Lopez

Interests

he

falsely represented In his

II

l'Id-eflpOISItion

under oath that he had no knowlédge of TinStar This conduct was

consistent with the efforts of Linebarger to divert

and unsuspecting
Lopez

instructed

partner, TinStar.

to not

as

admit that he was aware of TinStar
Linebarger faisifying

its

referred to as

'-

17 The program
201.,

admitted that

Title,  nc.,

in

at least

Road

1

which

is

to

to-

particularly important in

In fact, in

Edward

him that TinStar

one email, TinStar

The

Initiated

innocent

lino.-

Title,

referred to as valued partners of Linebarger

partner of Lmebarger

Nail

its

be seen below, Lopez was forced

a valued

Title, Inc.

was

LP and Steven M. Stronq Lawsmt

and Implemented by Linebarger continued from 2015

when Lmebarger sued a

Deposatlon at Page 47

L097

will

was propounded

and Sandra Daus were repeatedly
finally

to

caught, Lopez’s lawyer

responses to discovery.

Lopez’s deposition the question

and Lopez

when

conduct

answer the question?

16. ltdid not matter since ultimately,

light of

In fact,

its illegal

Limited Partnership called

The

Nail

Road

1

to

LP and

Lmés 7 15

_

"
...

Page60f26

._

PLAINTIFF'SzFIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

 '

firoperty

owned by the

Nail

Road

1

LP and Steven M. Strong, a Texas attorney

'

'

At

some

point

the

in

litigation,

Steven M. Streng Subpoenaed Sandra Daus

'

for

I

Prior to her deposition, TinStar Title, Inc

{her depOSItIon

5:

'__;E'abstract

servace of $3, 850 00 at the suggestion 0f

waived

its

fee for the

Edward Lopez and Linebarger

Thereashould have been n0 reason for Steven Strong to take her deposition
'

:‘'-

Zlmtaally

Edward Lopez

Sandra Daus

tOId

that

he had

handled and he had

it

filed

a

"

II

Motion to Quash

for Dallas

County. Lopez subsequently waived the Motion to

Quash and'subjected Sandra Daus

to her deposition without

any

protection.

While Sandra Daus thought her partner, Edward Lopez was protecting
claims to have told her he

was

Comment to

representing her, he directly violated the

Ruies 0f Professional Conduct, Rule 4.03 when he
to get legal counsel.

Edward Lopez's

role,

lt

is

clear that

-

g.__;-5'_:__:_-:-mtsundeirstandmg

course-ofI-‘ia

__

"“-"'to

In

addition as the

lawyer s representation

'of

failed to

fully

tell

Sandra Daus

advised her that her

make reasonable

client

not

the Texas Disciplinary
that

was

efforts to correct the

Comment to Rule 4. 03
a

was

Sandra Daus misunderstood

assuming arguendo, he had

not representing her, and Lopez failed to
":

he

not representing her but that she had t0 attend the

deposition. Despite the fact that he claims that he told her he

she needed

her,

notes “During the

the la‘Wyer should

”not

give advice

an unrepresented perSOn other than the advice to obtain counsel

”

Lopez

I
I

IIIIII"I"speCIfIcaIIy

testified In his deposstlon

lawyer.-.

__a_'_n

ttorney
saon':

"

-

I'Lopez

deposmon

at

when asked so

he answered

 

feel

I

Violated Rule 4. 03

no-

you never

didfw did not say ‘you need to get

because 'd'omg so reqwres me glvmg her

Edward Lopez

the answer

is-

legal

adwce

and the Comment

to

”3

By

Rule

his

4. O3

own
and

Page 92 Lines 16—25

Page 7
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

of

26

 II
I

'

I'Is'ubj'eictied

'

Sandra Daus

fiéver happened.

In

to

ImproperquestiomngInadépOSifibh

ad'dixtili'on,

thez

neverwrote Sé’hdra Daus

that

shoi'ul'd

have

prior to the

I'
I-

5
-

dépOSEti'on‘and told her that he'wa's' rioti'rebréSenting her

Edward Lopez also faded

deposmon
I'

'7
7:":

flied

to glve

Sandra Daus a copy

in

the deposition.

0f the Motion t0

9

Quash her

by Lmebarger and he neVer disclosed to her that he had waived

Iii’Iithe

Motion to Quash which stayed hér de‘pOsition. Edward LOpez caused

?damages

to

Sandra Daus as a

result of his violation of the

Texas

Disciplinary

Rules of Professional Conduct. To make things worse, Sandra Daus was
advised by Edward Lopez that she did not need to spend the
attorney since he

was

there.

Edward Lopez also spent hours

money

for

telling

Sandra how

an

I

t0 testify in her deposition, furthering the belief

Lopez was,

in fact,

by Sandra Daus that Edward

an attorney representing her

in

the deposition. Edward

Lopez’s actions as a partner of Linebarger, acting for an on behalf 0f the LLP,

imputes

liability

on

Edward Lopez as
18.

On June

all

well

16, 2017,

pafiners

in

Linebargerwith “supervision and control” over

as the partnership generally.

Sandra Daus, appeared

for

her deposition, as required by

the subpoena and the instructions 0f Edward Lopez

At the deposition Sandra

I'

'75-.5‘Daus

repeatedly asked for ass:stance from EdWard LOpez and he refused to help

II
f

her essentially abandoning her to the unfettered questions of the defense
I

i'counse!

Ultimately, near the end; of the deposmon Ms. Daus was asked “Who

I

thé-tithat was'Ia-In-fiacceptable practice for

electronically yourself?"

-

f

"-..

Z'9'L‘o‘b‘éidépwtion at

Page

Her answer was

“I

was

you

told

to apply the notarization

by thé Iawfrrm ?QueStio'n:

12, Lines 10—13.

Page 8
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

of

26

II

 "

You Were

told

by the law

fi'rm

Linebarger?” and her answer-

defense counsel asked her ho'w many affadavds she did

u

was “Yes

“like this”

1o

Thén

f

_

and she

I

I.

';

I

was over a thousand

“it

testified

_3

a year.

”11

I

a

Lmebarqer and Lopez
21-92'I'1'At

this

's

Stratew to Destroy TinStar

pomt Edward Lopez and Lmebarger

Title, Inc.

realized that their tactic to

istreamlme Linebarger making a fortUne on their cases by having TinStar Title
Inc

énd Sandra D'aus remotely notarizing the abstracts was about
While the debt to TinStar

their lap.

Title, Inc.

the income that Linebarger had just put at
dollars risk

Title, Inc.

elected to

because

of the advice

and

explode

to

{n

was approximately $3,000,000.00,

risk

was

in

the hundreds of millions of

direction that they

had provided

to TinStar

as well as Linebarger’s in~h0use employees. At that point, Linebarger

engage

from John R.

in

conduct designed

Ames and

to destroy TinStar Title, Inc.

the Dallas County Tax Office that they

and conceal

may have to
I

unwind thousands of cases should the
terrified that

if

their

conduct comes to

doliars annually that

__

even worse have

Z

to

it

truth

light,

come

to light.

Linebarger

may

generates from the Dallas taxing

repurchase

th'e

properties

it

Linebarger

was and

is

lose the millions of

perhaps

entities and,

foreclosed upon forthe taxing

'
'
i

iij7-I;i'lentltles

potentially costing Linéba‘rg‘er hundreds" of millions of dollars.

.--.:-'I:Lmebarger needed a scape goat and

TinStar Titie Inc and Sandra Dau's Were

I
I
I

'I'the'I'r-unwfltmg

;.-'_-as'they

Victims

hadfiidone Since.

Lmebarger ceased prowdlng TinStar the cost

2007 Without

me arger commenced a program

notice or explanation

ln'

affidavits

addition,

slandenng and freezmg Out TmStar

Title

Inc.

Sandra Daus Deposmon Page 171 Lines 17- 25
at Page 172 Lines1 15

I'd

-

..

__”

Pagesofzs
'

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

 I

'

from the funds owed to TmStar These actions Were taken to conceal

Lmebarger s conduct and

to continue generating

its

massive income

at the
I

"

'

3-

zexpense 0f TmStar

f

Title

Now

Inc

Linebarger

Is

interfering with TinStar’S rights;

II

fto

being paid for work completed by zeroing TinStar s fees

In

Judgments entered

a

"xfisafterl

'

11/6/2017 to present vacating exustlng judgments to enter a

new judgment

"

that-Zzeros out TInStar s fee afftxmg
Liby

d1fferent abstractors

fees

dismissals,

in

Title, Inc. to its

new Cost Affidavit to open

a

Including Linebarger’s

among

other

knees and but

illegal acts.

suits eXecLJted

employees zeroing out TinStar’s

Linebarger has brought TinStar

for this litigation,

would have been successfui

in its

wrongful conduct.
Unbelievably, Linebarger alleges

20.

2018

29,

that

it

cannot make a

tribunal” or “offer[ing] or us[ing]

in its

“false

Plea to the Jurisdiction

“If

information

is

known

provided by the client or another person, the lawyer

(emphasis
.
_
_.

__-3.'and

in

are-part of

its

scheme

to

must

or artifice to defraud TinStar.

lf

to

be false?”

be false and

‘is

refuse to offer it?”

These statements are obviously

original text).

on October

statement of material fact or law to a

evidence that the lawyer knows

Linebarger goes on to assert that

filed

false by Linebarger

Lmebarger

actually

"

be

gevedi'these assertions they

:-'-":I’-"I_re

would have

notified the

CoUrt 0f the allegedly

nded the money Lanebarger took from the Dallas County Tax Assessor as

“well

bought back'the

'a

__:ept;.__.the

propertyIi'lili‘:at':was

money

It

charged

for

foreclosed upon. Lmebarger did not
its’

alleged sewlces

Worse

still

"

L nebarger'rsiééia-th-‘e‘Jurisaicgtsbh‘

._

_-

a

athagé '25.

.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED. ORIGINAL PETITION

Page100f26

 I

Lmebarger had

at least

1O members of

staff

its

notanzmg Sandra Daus’ s signature remotely

domg

We'll In

same

the very

thing, Ewe

excess of hundreds of

'these notanzatlons Were" performed by employees of Linebarger. Linebarger and

-

.

never did anythmg about the

m

house remote

notarizations.” Apparently

‘

Q'j'-.'-_if_§f;_'}_.:':-.f:Lmebarger

s indignation only applies

when

it

wants

to Justify t_hroWi'ng‘ TinStar

I

The
'21. TinStar instituted

of

2018

a Rule 202

after their then

commencement

Instant thlqatlon

TRCP

proceeding against Linebarger

of the action.

Linebarger, empioying various counsel, has

to the discovery, falsely claimed that they

when

finally

ordered to respond

had never heard of TinStar

answer the discovery. Linebarger went so

mandatory Requests

-

Ultimately, TinStar Title, Inc. filed the instant

obstructed the orderly progress of discovery and

to

January

counsel claimed he needed months to prepare for the

action to bring Linebarger to justice.

and refused

In

fa:

for Disclosure to allege that “Linebarger

relationship, legally or factually with TinStar Title

in

Title, Inc.

answering the

never had any

Inc?“ This-statement

is
I

In fact

blatantlyfalse

_
_

on September 19 20133more than

five

years priorto the

"

'-

'

.

.f

"false

representation

in‘

Lmebarger s Request

for Disclosure

Peggy McCormick

...

5-,};the

Operations Manager

”at

Lmebarger emailed multiple

parties advising

them

i

”DefendantsResponses

tb'P'I'l'a'ih'tifi‘z's-

Request

fo'r

DiScldsure dated

November

16,

2018

at

Page

1

Page 11
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

-

of 26'

.

 .

P0 BOX

True! Inc

Obvmusly, Lmebarger saw
Corporation

22 Lmebarger

like

TInStar

in its

_.

little

Title

76096” (emphaSIS supplied)

m

0r n0 downSIde

Inc

_.

._

'15

TX”

131751 Arlmgton

trying to destroy

Perhaps, the jury

contmumg conspiracy to conceal

Will

its

a small Texas

think differently

conduct and to hold

oln

to‘

I

H
’

hundreds

Its

of millions of dollars of

Income pursued

its

scheme

to destroy

E
i

I

TInStar Title Inc

In

responding t0 TInStar s requests for production Lmebarger

I.
'

made

the followmg falsé representations to TinStar and the COurt:
_
_

I

a.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
relating to the

NO.

All

1:

doCumi'ents and f-n'emiéréndagi

Because no contract ever existed between Linebarger
responsive documents
b.

ANSWER:

agreement between Linebarger and TinStar.

Linebarger. Answer:

no

exist.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
referring to TinStar’s

an'd TinStar,

NO.

2: All

documents

compensation agreement

relating or

relating to

its

work

for

Because n0 compensation agreement ever existed

between Linebarger and TinStar and TinStar never performed “work
Linebarger”, no responsive

documents

exist.

23 As the evadence shows Lmebarger has engaged

._

_3-

for

”16

En falsnfacation

of responses to

I
I

discovery

in

an attempt

and TInStar

By way

'of

to conceal the

aCt'ua'l

relationship

example Linebarger'm

its

between Linebarger

response to Request

for

II

Production” No5 25falsely alleged that there
relatmg-to

___e_

en ”an

,?52018 at

-

_s_

s work; for Lmebarger

was no compensation agreement

Lmebarger attempted

to rewrite the question

Objections and Responses to First Request for ProdUCtion of Documents dated No'Ve'mber

Page

3.3-.

-

__

-.

Page 12'of26

f'

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

 s

I-n-the

33

response énd then falsely claimed that TinStar never performed wdfksfor
claiming that n0 responswe documents exist

Lanebarger
"

As

patently false

early as

August

14-,

2008 a decade

This response

earlier

Ed Lopez

is

_

Jr.,
I'

I

-

'ZPartner

and Peggy McCormick Operations Manager Wrote a Memorandum to

I

'

a
ll

L"s":-.:';'.'.;:"._'.Sandra

Daus and TST

(TInStal’ Titie

Inc

)

adVlsmg sandra 3nd TmStar that

I

"'-"3'IILInebarger

LGBS

was pleased

to

announce

has increased abstract fees

have been able

m

as of our August 22th

[sic] filing,

oar tax Case filings..;..We are pleased to

to facilitate this increase

continued efforts

on your behalf.

We appreciate your

supplying quality abstracts?”

in

enumerated responses

24. Linebarger's

that

to Plaintiff’s

Request

for Disclosure

and
_

Request

Production are false, misleading and intended to disrupt the orderly

for

flow of discovery while continuing their efforts to destroy TinStar to preserve

Linebarger’s vast fortunes.

25.TinStar has calculated that the
Linebarger
TinStar

damages

to TinStar are substantial, arid

now

attempting to choke off the source of funding to TinStar to keep

is

Title, Inc.

from pursuing

this litigation,

all

to TinStar’s substantial

damages.

..

.

.
.

I.

.

Spollatlon of EVIdence.

.

I

-.

-.

"

Request for' vadentlarv Hearinq and Request for Sponafion

.

_

__

Instruction

_

"

'

“1"
”i

SeeEths att'a-cm hereby
I

.
.

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 13

0f

26

 spohatlon of evidence by thé

knowmg and

Intentional

concealment of relevant
I

'

l'eVIdence

In addition to

the need fer sanctions for falsifying discovery responses

I
I

3

"

I'

the Intentional concealment of

-

ewdence by LInebarger

'3

the funcuonal

g-

equwalent

as

of-

spohatlon 0f

‘bad__fa:th' 0r: wullful’

ewdence “By

spohatron

intentional’ spoliation often referenced

we mean

that the Party aCt'ed W'th

the-

subjectwe purpose of concealing 0r destroying dESCOverable evidence. ”1.8
.27

Lanebarger aCted with the subjective purpose of Cencealing and possibly
destroying discoverable evidence. Linebarger had a duty to preserve the

evidence and such duty arose because Linebarger knew that there was a
substantial

chance a claim would be

control

would be material

TinStar

was demanding

September

filed

t0 that claim.

that the records

and the evidence

in its

possession or

Linebarger had actual knowledge that

be preserved.

29, 2017, Linebarger received a formal

By

demand

letter

dated

for preservation of

records which included language notifying Linebarger that “certain hard copy and
electronic records should be retained by
litigation

_

28.

._

concerning

Lmebarger

by

this

falsnfymg

'a't'
-

?°-

é’d-.;héreto

as Exhibit 7

WabMart Stores

Inc. v.

in

anticipation of possible

matter.“
its

responses to discovery breached

material and relevant evadence

-

LGBS

20

Lmebarger had a duty

its

dutyto preserve

t0 preserve the

.

Johnson 106

s. w.

3'“

718 722 (Tex 2003).

Page 14
IIIPLAINTIF'F’S

FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

of

26

 '

"'b'r'e'é'gh'ihg

'

duty'to preserve suchi'evidehbé’ it"rhéy'i‘rh'pose

its'

RUIe' 215. 2

remedy

of.

the Texas Rules of

CiVil

an appropriate

Procedure enumerates a wide
I

I

I'

”

"
'-

array 0f remedies available to a
I:‘-I__as

court

an award of attorney s fees or Costs

evidence
'

trial

striking

in

addressing discovery abuse such

to the

harmed

party, exciusion of

a party s pleadmgs or even dismissing a party’ s claims“ .Th'e

-

'*

tnélzéourt also

has discretion

to craft other

remedies

it

deems

appropriate

m

light

II

0f the particular facts of

an mdNIdual case including the submission

of a

spoliation instruction to the jury?“

30. After

215.2

due

notice

TRCP

and evidentiary hearing, TinStar requests the appropriate Rfile

sanctions, including an appropriate spoliation instruction to be given

to the jury.

Linebarqer’s Spurious “Governmental Immunity” Defense
31 .As part of Linebarger’s obstruction tactics Linebarger filed
Jurisdiction in the

Rule 202 Proceeding on June 11, 2018.

its first

On

Plea t0 the

July 29,

2018

this

Court entered an Order finding that the “Court has jurisdiction and therefore

denied Respondent’s Plea to the Jurisdiction on June 12, 2018, and hereby
.

_.

..__-.__-.__-_memonal:zes

said verbal order herein

IT IS

THEREFORE ORDERED

'

‘

AND DECREED that

17ij'f‘7-5:‘-f__?-;f{QADJUDGED

ff.{i-Iiifa-I'Ithlngs

denied

Respondent

s Plea to the Jurisdiction

Linebarger notified the Court that

it

an

ls in

would not mandamus the

'
'-

Court S Order denying Lmebarger s Plea to the Jurisdiction
gust183-20'18 Plaintiff filed

O"

2*

OctoberZQ 201

Brooksmre Bros Ltd

v.

8'

Its Plaintiff’s

Lmebarger

Aldndqe 438 s

flies its

w 3“ 9

Original Petition

second Plea

In

Cause No.

18—

to the Jurisdiction

20 (Tex 2014)

'

__

Page 15

_
_

PLAINTIFF‘S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

of

26

.

 I
I

I

34.

On November

15 2018 TmStar filed

its

Response

to

Defendant Lmebargers
I

a
I

m

Plea to the Jurisdiction outlining

detall

Linebarger has no

why

a

right to aSsert

_

'g

_1-"3:.."_.5_2fdefense

of governmental Immunity for multiple reasons inclUding, inter alia that

5

'..;7_‘-:I-j'_j-i‘no

public

money

Is

threatened by thus lawswt Lmebarger

as”

not a “governmental

3'

"zumt
I

am LInebarger

Is;

not_‘performlng

a governmental function

FUrthe'rmore,
I

sII'I’:-"I-'-II'..'fI_'"-Ii'_"-Lmebérger

not an agent'of Dallas County

Is
I

is

It

an Independent Contractor as

is

II

ewdenced by
-through one

own

Its

it

contracts With Dallas County

capital partners,

its

In addition

Pamela Pepe Johnson,

Linebarger,

judicially

confeSsed

in
1

testimony before this court on June 12, 2018 that the contract between
Linebarger and TinStar

had the independent

was independent

of the

right to select TinStar, that

under the direction of Linebarger, did not do the

and

of a taxing entity

when

it

came

Linebarger’s

t

he pockets of any taxing

21.

Jurnsdrct:on--.:.

I

total

title

titie

searches

searches under the direction

independent contractor status

who

did

searches. The instant lawsuit threatens only Linebarger’s

title

On November

entity in Dallas

County.

2018 Lmebarqer canCelled the hearing on

its

Plea to the

._

A private entity such as

36

had

TinStar did the

to hiring or firing the people, including TinStar,

pockets and not

35

that Linebarger

County of Dailas and Linebargef

Lmebarger shares

In

th'e’

state s immUnity only

if

the

'
I
I

state directs

and

controls'z'I'he

complalned Of'condUCt

The

State did

tLInebargera:Qeftalnly;Linebarger has no entitlement,

-.
._

..

.
_

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

In this

case, to

Page 16 of26

-

._

mt direCt

PETITION

 governmental Immunity nor derivative governmental Immunity
assertion Of this defense

__37

Plaintiff

Incorporates

paragraphs as

i-f-

all

In

is-

deVOId of merit.

each

Lmebarger s

22

of the followmg

Causes 0f action

such paragraphs were Incorporated

in

each

all

precéding

individual cau‘s’e

I

'

of action verbatim

-

38.-

As

Breach 'Of Partnership. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
and Demand for Accountinq and Exemplary Damages

the documents recovered by TinStar, despite being concealed by Linebarger

reveal, TinStar

and Linebarger entered

TinStar would provide

title

into

a continuing partnership where

a non-Iegal function,

abstracts,

to

Linebarger and

TinStar would be paid $350.00 per abstract provided. Linebarger and Ti'nStar had

a partnership called the Linebarger “Lawsuit

Filing

Programm The

between Linebarger and TinStar was one where the
=
-.

.-.__-._-.-:_.'-._'-.;:3:;::;and?

m

parties shared

losses; When'I'I'Lmebarger got paid Linebarger took

its

20%

partnership

the profits

of the recovery

H
3

?:?."jand

T'mStar received: $350 00 pér abstract

If

Linebarger did not get paid

'

'-.'

-"I:TmStar did

not get paid

At

n'o

time

xpresinrgreement to share

was

there a sharing of legal fees but there

profits

and

loss

'

ars-Response to-Defendant Lmebargers
15} 2018: and Incorporated herein as if r‘e'Cite'd verbatim.
._23 See Exhibit
8 attached hereto
Intlff

-

'

--

f'

_-

_;_

In

Pie'a to the Jurisdiction filed

on November

'

H

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST

Page170f26
_

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

-

 '

I

The partnership between TmStar and Lmebarger was and

39

is

not prohibited by
I

the Texas DISCIpIInary Rules

of-

Professaona! COnduct.

5. 04

Professiona!

I

Zil'ii-‘iii’zformiIa'fizpartnership

j-{coraSIs-tqof

With a

non lawyer

None

the practice of law

if

any

of the activities of the partnership

of the activataes of the partnership between

-

_

Tm

-

_.

tar-and Lmebarger constituted the practice of law and so the partnership

Inotl

prohibited by thé

Texas Disalplmary Rules

of Professional

Conduct

was

At no

time did a nonlawyer have the right t0 direct or control the professional judgment
of a lawyer

and

at

no time was a TinStar member a corporate director or

officer

of Linebarger.

Under both the Texas Uniform Partnership Act and the common

40.

have a duty

to

one another

t0

make

partnership and to account for

one another a

all

full

disclosure of

matters affecting the

partnership profits and property. “Partners

fiduciary duty, including a strict duty of

managing partnerzs owes

all

law, partners

good

faith

owe

and candor.“

A

his partners the highest fiduciary duty recognized in the

 aw.”26
"

:'_

he actions
duelary

_o_f

Lmebarger breached

utaes to

anzaiu:

its

partnership agreement and breached

its

TmStar by

SW

3rd

381 394 (Tex App Beaumont2002 no writ)
barger was. the? managing partner 0f the partnership with Peggy McCormick being the “Operations

rosseauv.

81

Manager” of the partnership

25Hufimqton v
_

See

Up‘c‘hurch 532

Exhibit

SW2“ 576

579 (Tex 1976).

___

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page180f26'

_

'

_

 I'

'I

I

I
'I
'

Vibi'afing 4.03"

and

lthe

Comment fo 4.03

bf the

Texas

Ruiiie'si'

Disciipii'ria'ry

Of 'Prb'féSSiohél Conduct;
c._-.
I

a

prowdmg apparently false advice

to TinStar that

it‘

was

certainly

TI”

”iii'acceptable

7

to

Use remote notarizations and demanding

that TinStar

employ remote notartzations
_

_

'

Signing Sandra

d

Daus name

to abstract a'ffidévits

and having numerous

II

mdlwduals

at

Lmebarger notarize Sandra s name outside of Sandra s
I

presence and
e.

terminating TinStar, throwing TinStar under the bus and réfuszing to

account to or properly pay TinStar for
f.

services;

wrongfully raising governmental immunity and sovereign immunity to

avoid
g.

its

its

partnership obligations to TinStar; and

placinq Linebarger’s financial profitability and

its

relationéhips with

Dallas County, Dallas Citv and Dallas ISD (“Dallas Entities")_over
fiduciary obligations to

42.TinStar further
to

demands a

TmStar and demands

full

that

if

its

its

partner, TinStar.

accounting of

all

funds that should have been paid

Linebarger cannot account for

all

of TinStar’ s

II

I

abstract fees that Lmebarger be Held

Strictly liable to

pay TinSta‘r for such

abstract fees as a result 0f Li'nebarger’ s conduct
I

43 The dealings between Lmebarger and TmStar were not

TmSta
place

Lan'ebarger

made unreasonable use

fair

and eqwtable

of the confidence that TinStar

n;Lmebarger-Iandi'ILI'nebarger failed to act In the utmost

falled t0 exe'rCIse the

good

faith

and

most scrupulous honesty toward TinStar. Linebarger failed

Page 19

-

._

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

to

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

0f

26

 '

"t'é-Tp-Tl'acé

{Hé

i'rit'ereSts "of

TinSta-r before

own

Linebargers

interest andLi-nebarger

a

'_.'-"used

the advantage of

its

posatlon t0 gain a benefit for itself to the detriment of

2

'.:_:';_-

Lmebarger

;.:".{__=I.-;§I‘-.I._'TtinStar

failed to fully

and

fairly

disclose

important information to

all

concerning their relationship
”,4

Accordingly, the burden" of proof
0r

--

__ene__-I

which

its

ed

from:

Is

0n Linebarger, since Linebarger

dealings With TinStar or has placed

its

itSelf In

ha‘s‘

profited

a position

in

self—mterest conflicts with the interests 0f TinStar.

45. Linebarger’s motivation to violate
unfettered greed

and as a

its

result of

duties to TinStar

came as a

result of

its

__

fear that Linebarger could be exposed to

its

_

hundreds of

millions 0f dollars of

the properties that
intentionally set

notarizations.

fiduciary duty

up TinStar

"The
is

illegally

it

‘intent'

damages should

it

be required

to

buy back

seized on behalf 0f the Dallas Entities.

t0 take the

blame

for

its

of

Linebarger

advice to employ remote

issue concerning exemplary

whether the one with a

all

damages

for

breach of

fiduciary duty intended to gain

an

additional unwarranted benefit?” TinStar, Linebarger’s partner, relied'o-n the

advice provided to TinStar by
.

mtentlonal breach of

..

E?may recover punitive
1:"s".5-575:33'_3-Ii"._g_f'damages

m‘

its

its

law firm pafiner. Linebarger engaged

fidumary duty to TinStar which

damages

an amount not

to

”28

“is

a

tort for

in

which

an
plaintiff

TinStar sues for punitive and/or exemplary

exceed two times the amount 0f economic

II

"damages

'iursuant to3§

41 008(b)

CMI

Practice

& Remedies Code

(“CPRC”).

Breach of Contract

-

eek v.,-..Humphreys.- "-800 S
Hawthorne V.- Guenther 917 S.

W2“ 596

W 2nd 924

-

g

;_

599 (Tex. App.--Houston [14m Dist] 1990 writ denied)
936 (Tex App -Beaumont 1996, writ denied)

_'
-

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

Page200f26

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

--

 46

Lmebarger breached

contmumg
'

its

contract With TinStar by failing to perform under the

contract betWee'n TinStar and Linebarger.

'3

47

As a

result of

SUCh breach Linebarger

damages ansmg from such breach as

ts liable

for

all

actual

and consequential

as reasonable and necessary

well

I

attorneys fees

Tortuous Interference wuth Contractual Riqhts
and Prospectlve Contractual Rights
II
I

"

48

L'ihi'ébalrgé?
by its actions as alleged aboVe h‘as tortuously
TinStar’s contractual
existing

rights.

“Texas law protects

as well as prospective contracts from interference”.29

TinStar 0f
for

and prospective contractual

inte-rfered-wiith

illegal

conduct and

in interfering

In falsely

with TinStar’s right to collect

each abstract performed by TinStar, Linebarger has caused TinStar

actual

damages

of

in

accusing
its

fees

to suffer

excess of $2,800,000.00 as well as consequential damages

as a result of Linebarger’s improper conduct. TinStar also sues for punitive
and/or exemplary

damages

an amount not

in

economic damages pursuant

t0

exceed two times the amount

to § 41 .008(b), Civi! Practice

of

& Remedies Code

(“CPRC”).

Breach
49

Lmebarger expressly warranted
abstract performed by TInStar
_by.;_-Interfermg WlthiTilnStar

”Sterner'ivi:

--

-:

o'f

:Méféihbhbfl'cm 767

Express Warranty

that TinStar

would receive $350

Linebarger has breached

s right to collect

a's‘

SW2“ 686, 688' (Tex.

well

this

for

each

express warranty

as Simply refusmg

to

pay

1989)”
'

Page 21 of267
'PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

.

 I

Fraud.
I
'

"

50Th‘é écfidné

':.

_-

dein'ebai’geir defrauded TinSt'ar. TiriSt‘ar

sués

fbr'all

aCtual

and

”I
'1-

exemplary'damages as a
_.

___.

__

._

._

result of the fraud perpetrated

on

it

by Linebarger.

\

__

Quantum memit
I

In'the'liéiltérnatlve
'

"

TInStar sues under thé eqwtable remedy of

Quantum Martin,

"

'2.f-_j7'.{'::.‘-_.:'I‘Valuazble

sewices were rendered

to

Lmebarger the person sOught

t0

be charged

by TInStar The service's and materials Were accepted by Linebarger and used

and enjoyed by Linebarger. These services and materials were enjoyed and
used by Linebarger under such circumstances as reasonably
that TinStar

in

performing such services

was expecting

to

notified

Linebarger

be paid by Linebargéf

either directly 0r indirectly.

Attorney’s Fees
TinStar

52.

was

forced to hire Michael Pezzulli, an attorney licensed and

standing with the Texas
its

Supreme Court and

in

good

State Bar of Texas. TinStar sues for

reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

Motion for Net Worth Discovery
53

TmStar

Plaintiff

___to

§ 41 0115

files this

CPRC

Motion for Discovery of NetWorth Evidence Pursuant

and requests that

this

CoUrt authorize diacovery of

evrdence of Defendant Linebargers net worth pursuant to § 41 01 15

CPRC

and
I

would respectfully

show the followmg

m""1"”s_filed

by

Plaintiff

TmStarTstle Inc on August 8 2018

rises out of the relationship

between

Plaintiff

seeks exemplary damages against Lmebarger

for

and Defendant

breach of fiduciary

'
'

Page22of26

'-

..

-

_

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

H

 'I

l.

Id

ufiés

Ia

nd fraud among othercounts

to Plaintiff’s claims for

Lifiébafg’éf’é net worth

lrel'evié

is

nt

exemplary damages
_

_

b.‘

has a substantial

Plaintiff

for

likelihOOd 0f

success on the merits of

claim

its

exemplary damages because the conduct described above shows

”I

and malicaous conduct by Linebarger

Willful

to

harm

Plaintiff for

"

-:'._:_'.3_'Lmebarger s‘

personal gain

.

.

.

.

_

'
'
'

requests the followmg discovery t0 determine Defendant s net

'I'¢:;.I.II3'_PlamtIff
._

.

.

.

worth
'

Ail of

i-.

Lmebargers Income Statements and

statements for each quarter from January

\

Balance Sheet

ii.

for Linebarger for

its

all

1

Other financial

2017

to the present;

fiscal/calendar year ending

2017 and 2018;
General Ledger

iii.

for Linebarger’s fiscaI/calendar

year ending 2017

and 2018.
Listing of

iv.

all

accounts receivable from January

1,

2017

to the

present;
v.

Any and

all

January

1,

bank and/or brokerage accotmt statements from

2017

to the present for Linebarger.

54.TinStar respectfully requests that this Court conduct a hearing and grant
TinStar’s Motion for Discovery of Net

CPRC, and

grant any other

justly entitled._

_

__

_

TmStar s damages
a

which

Plaintiff,

TinStar,

to §

41

may show

.01

1.5,

itself to

be

_.__:._
_

55

relief to

Worth Evidence pursuant

_

arise from different conduct Of Linebarger:

Lmebarger shorted payment

to

TmStar by not

collecting the

full

I

rifabstractl'd

.-

Stér
I

I

i:

'feezdue to

h-as-be-en

TmStar TInStar has been damages

damaged by the non--paym‘ent

of

open

under-this

suits

besause

of

'I

*

I‘Llnebarger

m

the amount of $14 700 00.

Page 23

.
.

PLAINTIFF’S'FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION

of'2'6

-.

 H H

'
.'

deprixking‘

TinStar

Tin’Star has been

"I

of-

income

in

amalgam

the

$é9l'1-I'

#156100.

damaged by Linebarger s unpaid judgments m

the

I

I

'

been d'amég’édiby LinebargeirfidnL's'u'itifigbas-es'thereby

T'insta'rhas

”
-

.

i-'_I-amount

$910 350. 00.

of

'
i

TmStar has been damaged by Linebarger zeromg Judgments

i.’

In"

the

_

I

'

‘amount of$184 800. 00-,
TinStar has been

1f.

damaged by Linebarger failing

abstract fees to TinStar thereby

$333,550.00.

Linebarger

in

damaging TinStar

the

in

amount

of

_

-

TinStar has been

g.

f0 distribute COIIeCtéd

damaged by the

unilateral dismissal of shits

by

the amount of $175,450.00.
_

TinStar has been

h.

and turning

it

damaged by Linebarger

over to a

third party for

simply taking TinSfar’s work

payment

in

the

amount

of
I

$66,150.00.
I

TinSfar has been

i.

“Bailey Suit."

TinStar.

is

damaged by Linebarger faiiing

T0 the

t0

pay TinStar

extent that Linebarger breached

its

in

the

agreement,

now owed $101 500.00;

Prayer far

Réui'ef-

I

'56“. Plaintiff

TInStar asks the Court

t_o

7“'énter”Ludgment'agamst Lmebarger for allactual compensatory, direct

and

mca‘dentalg;

-

-

and consequential damages

I

Page 24

'

PLAiNTIFF’S "FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL

PETITION-

of'26':

'

 I

"
i
.

b Iiéh't'ér.jfid'g'ment'agai'nst-Linébargérfor

all

exemplaryénd/‘c-fif punitive
I
I

I

damages;
I'asirvéf'd

c

TihStar attorney’s fees and costs against Linebargerii

'

WdTStpldgmt and pudgmttttth

h‘ghest

I

"

V

f..-

"awardI'Ti'h'sxtér'sfich

law

'or

I'étfie'r

and

further relief to

A written

it

entitled

inf

equity.

Under Rule 216, TRCP, TinStar requests a

57.

is'jiuéstl'y

which

request has been

before'the date set for the

filed with

trial

trial

by jury on

all

issues so triable.

the clerk of the court a reasonable time

cause and the

of the

has been paid

jury fee

-

to the

clerk of the court.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL F.

PEZZULLI,

P.L.L.C.
/s/ Michael F. Pezzulh'
'

Michael

F. Pezzullf

State Bar No. 15881900
880 Country CIub-‘ROad'

-

'-

-'

--

--

-

_-

"

'
'

Texas 75069;
(972) 713-1300
michael@courtroom;com

'

'Féirvi'ew,

www.courtroom.com

__
_

.

.
_

._

_
_

'

'-

Counselfor the'Plai'n'tifffl

..

-

-

-

._

_

'

.

.

_.
__
_
_

_
I

Page 25

of'26

.

_

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

-

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I

'Thls
on;
__

Is

to certify that the

the below Counsei

abOVe

Plaintiff’s

Road
Swte 530
:_”}¥'Dallas Texas 75254
'amh@andrewmhoward com

Fourth

Amended

e service on

and/o'r
via email

Original Petition was Served
this the 26th day of February 201 9

1353;352:120 Spring Valley
.

-

-'

:

--

-'

-

/s/ Michael Pezzulli

"
'

.

3.

.

.
.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 26

of

26

  

EXHIBIT 1

 

 

a

Am

m

i

1233M

t

65's. Ii

@
Mn

<

i"

Y”
mmnmm
mmmmenmm

mtm‘esrmldbeon

mahzeflm§aendcopies

M'D'Wrecords.
Kevin

‘

mwm
W
“-‘5

'5

-\

:E‘fliflkfiJ flyfifi

‘3‘"

.

Them

yon".

We

3v":

mum

o

  

 

EXHIBIT 2

 

1E3! ?Il

A333 L11

arr

I

I 65$

fl

a

<

i,

51mm

iii

Mam Hm:

yen Ind a

review the affidavit tm
13-15-623? mat we need to fiie

chance

WW
m
m
today?
it

you 010359 send ll
very
wt: ham”? Thaak

m

Kmn'n

www.fiwiflsendno vat;

r

m.
we mm ahead and

mm“,
m. ituanobem
mm
r

rue Wm!
retain.

1n“)
d you a
Thanh anyway and it’s

clay.

Kevin

hid

é
é
.I

a_;_»

'

  

EXHIBIT 3

 

 

FILEE'

D&LAS WIN“
T!

I&Emifi 1352-31 Pit
1:5le Pi IRE
DISTRWJ C1 ER“

SUIT N0. TX—lS—iflll?

DALLAS COUNTY. ET Al.

THE

IN

§

IIISTRICT

(‘Ol'

RT

§
'

VS.

44TH le' DICIAL IHSTRICI'

Wfl“

MARILYN W AL’HE‘L ET Al.
FIRST

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT FOR COST 0F ABSTRACT

BEFORE MT:
personally

17h:

miiflmgncd :tufiaumy

ii.

E,

fully

w his nus

fists! b3-

Sandra Bans

am

competent lo make

mad: herein

TST
nt'

a nous pub}; iu um! am 51mins Ewan}. Ivan
Tin Star Liligaiism Suyptm 5. Title PTST’W am! afiimfl.
milking this Afiidaut. and tlacwby quailiticd u: :all “fight“ m muLc Lin:nude; wilt Sum mm! remix?
did
duly zamxm amt

apgxmvd Samara Baas

kmmn h}: am: m l»: fir: pmun
Affifim

DALLAS- C‘OU .VI'Y. 'I'EXAS

[mural tut

nn- tms: and

ltax‘

lln:

me

nr’

Mm

mu

me

age af

this Atl'adawiz.

Lucht am! bani}

umn’uucd with
Phintililzw {u

[has

IE»

um

t

ma.

Lm film

gum [dc

Lin:

mm

war.»
atria:

I

m

pctwml
uz'

Imus:

um
ucwr hem uumcwd of a fclnny
du hereby; “was thin all smtcnwms
1

smear, us

I

hm“ lcdgc

ut'

[Jiwhmgcr fiuggun

mum. Mummy

each

ui'

Mm:

5';

the fawn 5c! funk herein.

muupwum

amt Eumuun n5 lhc

P.

[.1

ullwucys

umwmn puma 3nd m

dmuqmmat si u!" 1ch pwgwrtyur {mute Ltzc subgm ut' tin: ubmc uuumhclml
mailhm hm min: ‘I'S'l' rm mum} Ami :mmmrd 1h: Unltw (mung 1km Rumids :md Valium minty
xmlrcx [u pn‘wuic 2h: rcqucalcd :mhmlm'auu. im- lc»: tn: mid serum: w Sulfllifl
um [mniliut‘ “uh
mt rum uud churgu‘» {or mic ubstmrb m amt in'uuud mu Unitas Count) arm. 111a" i‘w chmycii rur thus
ps'uuunug tlw mccxmf}. lcgué

and.

l

abm c dcscn’t‘ui

>cn'l'n‘5. 1}

rcasmmblcf'

?L‘ijiz

)Inhé CJ)

‘x

Sandm Dams - um!"

Linen under

my hand and $13.1] ul'ufliw am 113::

13th day u! Jul}.

Emu

a
A

Al,
4

If.

{J."gv

Nomi)

J'
I

.

Afgzs-A

"

4+»

.

k

J

?ublic in and {hr the Slate

02‘

Fem»;

Normv mic. 9m:- ol hum
Emma hm!“ B1 ”‘19“

L_fimw

nu

b

;

mam“

E
“P

g

E
a

Maura s h" WK

I”

l

  

 

EXHIBIT 4

 

 

 

bump

From: Edward topaz <£dwardl
Date: Tue, Sap 13, 2931 at

Subject Re: Grand prairie

62¢ PM
suit

Ta: Tin Star <(ins:artili2@2ma:l,mm>
Cc. Peggy

McCormick

M

(Pae-

bacon»

i

Sandra,

Ewas heaping that would be cmveying the message that the propefiies went
l

m sheriff‘s Ede and 50H

Much to my chagrin the deveiaper chose mt m hid
amen fimugh they were insistem that ihe pmpemv make the sherifis sai-e in Sepiember.

as plannefi. Unfnfiunaleiy. that did net happen.

much time imaged irate» the tase, and because the remverv 0f yaw fees {and the
paramount importance- ta me, maid nut alien: the pimpeny tn be starch ufi’ tn the
manage: and city attorney agreed that they would mt (mate an avenue for the developer

Because ysu have so
ad

mews)

are

The City

City.

13f

l

to get a better "deal.“

All this

means

is

that the neveiaper has

m buy {he pmperties

113

cnmpiete

their anticipated praieu.

So

anticipate reposling this very soon,

Addixéenaiw, I'm gaiflg 1‘0 d0

can

mew? it through the

We

not afl gem!

knew

that I'm

what can
fl

m market this property to athez‘ pwspeclive

remaining steps

in

puratlma'segs so

we

the wncess.

mam, as ?eggr nmmioned, them
prawnmg yam interests,

i5

guod news in between. $0 hang

in

there and

Ed
Sent

(mm my Phone

Du Sep
> Ed

if

13,

2011. at

you can

let

11:03

PM.

"Tin Star“ <t_~n~.nu._:'t;g_g_miay_

me mm» what a good

time for

the day Dr I get out 9f the day job at 3:45

mu

is,

{'an mute:

make time Io tat! in. ran call during
ail knew 111059 days don'I we? Hahaj

then can

I

I

on most days (we

>
> Thank you the quick respunse Peggy!

>
b Sandra Dans
>

> Sent ftom

>
> 0n Sap
>

my iphzme

13, 2011, at 2:48

PM, Peggy McConnick <Pegggm fliggsxmm wrote:

>> Hi Sandra,
>> Ed 8: were jam taming about
i

this

when he will be in the office.

Ed,

good time for us to be able to

call

is

case

last

8: need t0 tail you together. and I'm not sum
good 15m- vau this week, and Sandra is there a

week. He

theme a time thai

is

I

you?

j”

1)

Egg

XHIBIT

3
NON

N55)

‘J

__‘,

L.

WAHD.CSEH

WA armams

"
.

’

x

I

 p)
>> It is a good 5m, bat it’s Ed's stew, sn I want him
>> Thanks 3: have a geat day!
J)

m share

it

with us both.

>> Peggy
>)

>> Peggy Mcfimmitk
_>> Operations Manages: ~ Daiias {3th

>> Linebarga Gaggan maria“ a Sampson, LLP
{#595 221-59513 g Fax (21a) ?55—7157

x.»

1*}

)>

Wmfimw

>> ——Gfiginal Message-m>> Pram: Tin Sim imihozfizfigg‘ii—flgfigmailwml
>> Sent: Tuesday; Seiamher 13, 2011 223$ PM
>3»

To:

Mommi

Edward tape: ?eggy
Band prairie met

>> Subject:
>>
rs)

Hem.

>>
>> Can yen please advise
did not saie

as:

expected

ars

la what the status

last

Tuesday-

if

thus case

What state is

i1

in

is now? From the loeks nf it,
mow?

it

appears that it

1‘)
>2:

Thank you,

>>-

>>

53min Dans

>9

{mm my iphone
CONFflENTMUTY STATEMENT

>> Sent

>3

>> ThES transmissian may be:
o: [3) strictiy

confidential

it

(1) subject to

the Auernev'Ciiem Pn'm-ilega {2} an attmnev walk

you are nut the imendad

copy or dissemina te- this inflammation- If you have received fihis
sender {only} and deiete me message- Unaulhm‘ized imercem‘mn 3f ibis e—mail
pn'nt,

pmducL

message. vm: may not disciase.
fig: e! rm, please reply and noliiv the

recipient of thus

is

a vioiafiun of {emeral

criminai iaw.

CONFIMNMLEW STAT}: MENT
This transmission
(3! strictly

mag

be: [1) subject

mnfidemiai.

Ii

39m: are

m the Attornev-Client Privikbgew (2) an almmev work pmdutt, or

nut the intended recipiem 0f thig mesaage.

mu may mt disclosed,

prim came 0r ‘disrueminate this infarmation. If van have reteiwefl this in ermr, please reply and mtifv the
sender {unlyi and delete the message. Unauiharized intei‘ceiafiofl flf this e—mail is a viniaticm £3! federal
cuiminai law.

  

 

5

 

 

 

 

From: Peggy McCormick

waggm @Egbs.cam>

Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:54

PM

Change 9f address for Tm Star “rifle
To: “George Vent jr (Georgefiiemirifidaflaswumyggr' (Genmeyemgn‘gdajgimunw erg)
Cc; Tin Siar <imstanitlefigmail.mm>, Heather Mueller <HeamerMuelier®52bscom>
Subject:

Mr. Vent,

One of mar ahstmctnrs -—Tm Star Title
this,

changing addresses, and I wanted ta make you aware of

(131‘), is

so that van can change yum recands 3150.

Please mail

ail

ahsmuer fee

disbufsements far TST to the failnwing address:

Tm Slat 11112, Inc.
P 0 80x 131751
Arlington, TX

£9“

T6395

you need any additional information, phase cafi

Thanks so

me at 469.22 1505!} or e-vmail' gagggymsifiigbmom

much for ali of your help.

Peggy McCormick
“-

Manger

Operatimls

L&aebnrger Gaggan Blair &

Sam pson. LLP

Amrneys al Law
Eggifigjb -t1.\.colu
2323 Bryan
Dallas,

TX

Street, Sle

1600

ESE!“

Main? (114) 836-0089
Dimct: (469) EELSflfifl
Fax;

(2M)

111523}:

L}:

u"

1’54—3167

Jabsflfigfi

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

m

may be: {l} subjec: the mmmay—{Tlielu Privilege! (2) an 3210mm; work wuduaz. 0! 1.3) Sirimly
confideminli. if you arc nut {he intended recipient ai'ahis mssage. yin“ may :10? disclose. prim. mp): {37' difismiml?
This transmission
this

mmived this in emar, pimm rqai)‘ am] notify me sender (mam and dame the mcssngm
iulrmrwm 9f this e-mail is a violaiian uf {Marni criminai law.

infommtion‘ lfyou have

Uunuilmrizcd

5

g'flfi 4;
3'

339413;:

Na
‘5'

*{A‘mm

"

«5

‘—

-

‘

7
..
V

‘— _

L

lmkn‘gm ‘SR

f

i

2
‘

a

‘i

E

7

EXHIBIT

    

EXHIBIT 6

 

mtEBARGER (306mm Ema & 83mm. LLP

AWE: M Law

m

UWMGRCEW’
1m
ms am‘mmfix

MEIR“
'

ram

9351

mm

wzmm

mt nmmam
august

14,

2mg

MEMDRANDIJM

Mum Ram k 3min Baas. I‘ST

TO:

R5 Mam; N136
Sim Rumefi: LHS

Edwaai Lupcz, EL

FROM:

We

m

fees in

Mas
and

km Ema,

m

Pm
Operations h

um

mas

as of our Angus: 22“ filing,
manna:
pleased
ans inmmi nbstmt
fii’mgs. [n light of wmml mute: conditions and indusm mamas within
our
Conny. var dis not marinate m3 {whim in having 1h: new
approved as “fair

m mt

mum

mombit"_

The new

cfabmact on cach progeny will be £350-00. Migusl 22" will be mu"
mason and so all abstracts that arc incinded in this filing will reflect 1h: new

fcc fur thv: cost

firs; filing fur this
Yea.

Wt

m

pleased

m have been able to fuciiim this

mmmm fins'm Wiring

Quality

mm

on 1mm behalf.

\A

e

main wont

shawls.

mum-m Mim-m- mm-um.m
m Wm
WiMf Smkmbbmmrth"

‘

.1}:—

.--»

3mg:

.

Fiam-IIR-nlmgmxl

~

lime»

n

MIR») lmw mmfil: Luth Millennial
I‘Tyiwvhmm-M
o

-

WVa mhm
4:93;__

”'7

-

l
_
:‘E‘i

J.

law N0. EAL}.

.3 a
WA Morten.

2 m 0N Wank. CS5;

flunflqlu

i

e

"man

  

EXHIBIT 7

 

 

LAW 09mm OF Mlcnm F. Pmum
A Pmpmnmm Lmzmn Llama“ Gaammmn

Pfiga

*3

Comm? Cum Rona Fmvmw, Tms 75069
F. Puma:
szqrgvum C469-233emm
memnflmummm.mm
83c;

Mm

3

i

a

i

F.

Septanm 29,, 201?
Ms. Pameia Pope

2???

N.

Jmmsm

SW5

Freeway

Smile 1069

Baflas‘

Tam 75267
PamJ@{gm com

Via emaii:
Mr-

Edward

2?? N.
Suiie

1.03323, Jr.

Siemmms Fmeway

Tm

Texas 7.520?
Via emaii: Edwardtgfiéggbs.m

3333333,.

Haass
711 Navarm Street
Suite 300
Sal Mimic. Texas 78205
Via email: haasugg“ athel

Mr. Rick

‘WExmm

Demand for

Re:

Preservation 0n behalf of Tin Star

d(bia Tin Star Title

Deaf Ms. Jahnsm and

Mews.

Lapez

anti

& Litigaiicm

Title} Inc.

Support

Haass:

ma

Piease be advised that have been retainad lo raptesent Tm Star Title, Inc.
& Litigaliun Suppm (“Tin Sim“) with respect to work pelfonned by Tin Star
0n behaif of the Dallas mffice of Linebarger Gnggan Blair a Sampsm, LLP (“L688“). My
Giant, far years, has beefi pefionnéng abstrac: services fer LGBS and has acumen! a
sigrfificant amounts payable cummw due and owing by L633“
Pumuant ta our
invesfigafiim inta this matter, cenain hardtop); and eiectmnis records smuld be telained
by LGBS in anticipation of possibae iitigaiian concerning this mama“.
I

Tin Star Title

Hammad far Preservation of Electronically Storm! Infamatian

Tm 51m demands that van pmaewe au decuments; tangibie things and
eieckmicaily stated inftmnmion pclenfially relevant lo the issues in this
As user!

mm.

Emma

Cm

Cum. Tam. Law, Twas 3mm 9r Lama. Smutmanou.

m
mmyem

Camuamn Mfimxmn, Tame Minimum Cuanmmauna Assem‘rmu www mm om

 Page}:

.

mfinis dowmem, “yam” and “yen? refers m 3.633 and its predecassars sumssms
parents subsitfiaées divisims araffifiates andtheir mspenlive officers {fireman wants
afiameys accountants empioiyees partnersommer parsons mcupying sirrfiiarposifims

'

_

1

“Br patfmmmg

gimfi‘aar

functmns

mum

I

m

animpme that
uf the informafinfi subject ta disclasure
am! farmer commuter
dmscovery in this matter is siored
yam
systems {and ether media and deviaes (including perseniai digital assistants voice—
smassagmg sysiems amine mpOSitofieS and 09H thmS)- {3f particuia; interasi is ail of
me anfannahon stared en yéur FTP systems a‘n‘d yaw Oracle Systems
Yfiu

_

g-ieresponswe

*—

shrauid

m

1c:-

mam:

-»
.

.'

'

__

3W

the
__.
Eiaczmnzcafly stfiz‘e‘fi infnnnalé-on (haanina‘fiea’ "E31”; should be
broadési pasfible fiefirfitmn and indudes {by way sf example and mat as an exclusive fist)
pmaméafly re 26mm anfozmalian eSecfmnmafly magnetically or opficafly 31mm! as:

mmmm’écatims (9g, e-mai!‘ mice msaéL instant messaging);
dacumems (e..g.. Word m“ Wordwrfect
and drafts};
precessed
Wand
Sprmsheeis 3nd tables {3.9“ Excei er Laws 123 wnfiazsheefis};
Amuniing flppficafion Data (e.gw Quickfiuoks. Manage, Peadah‘ee flata files);
Image and Faca'miie Fiias (3.49.3 .F‘flF, .TIFFJ APB: .Gii: images);
fiigiia!

mmmts

sauna Remrdings (fig, .WAV and

MP3 flies);

Videa and Animation (8.9., AV! anal MEN files);
Databases (e.gr Access} Gracia SQL Sewer data, SAP);
Cantact and Relatimship Management Data (egg, Outlmk, ACTH;
Calendar and Diary Appiication Data (e.g., Outlook PST, Yam, blag toms);
Galina Access Data {e.g. Tempm‘ary lntemet files, History. Cookies);
Pmsefiiatiflns (9.9., PaweIPoint, Com! Presentationw;
Netvwrk Acces3 and Server Activity Logs;

Illlll¢IOOIUOOCO

Project

Managemenl

Appiicatinn Data;

Computm Aided DesigniDrawing Files; and,
Back Up and Archival Files (99., Zip, .GHO).
E3! resides

.

._

media reasmabiy
,

:
'

-

only in areas of menimni-B magnetic

_aincessa‘ble ta

mnabie accemble

..
‘

mt

Yam: are

pm: but alsc

abii'ge‘d

in

and

areas you

la preserve pnte‘nhafly

optical sinrage

may deem not

maven! evidence

fmm hath these sums 0f ES! wen if mu do not aniicipaie preducing such ES!

The demand that yeu preserve both accessible and inaccessible ESi is
masanabfe and a_esessary Pursuant to the Federal Rules 9f Civi! Pmcadum you
"
must Idenilfy a1! scarces of ES"! ynu detainee to
and demuns‘tmte tn 1m
."__’:‘_'Ceufi why. such sources are hm réas‘onabiy actessible
Fm" gum
sham
thé‘
arde'r
preducfim cf the ES: even
may :hein
it finds that ii is ml
masanably accessibie In additian pwwani ta 1'6an Rules {31’ Eivii
{REE __196 .4 {Eiectionia or. Ma'g'nefic Data) you musi pmduce the 3396mm 0r
magnem: data that rs m_spensive t0 the request and is masanably available m the
responding party in {fie aidina‘ry course at businem If yen baliave {hat the data Is
not accessfibie through reasonable efferls the Cam can stiii mum yam m cnmply
v

.

,

"

prom

-

mm

"‘-

I

g;

-—

i:

'

'_

-

mum

iii

Prom

‘

ii

 '

page 3

.

A

A
I_

'

7'
--

the request Amerdmly. éamn ESi that yau deem reasonably inacces'sébiel
Tm Star c? its right t0 seem
must be preserved 1n the interim $0 as 10 mt deprive:
0r”
the Cnurl of its fight to acfiudi-cate the issue
the evidence
wail:

Preservatien Requires immediate Intervention
I

am

Yam mus:
immediateiy tn
:‘vaimout limiiafion information with the

I

mam

pomntiauy relevant ES!

5mm
'

63mg? of a Created or Last Modified date on
after 20H Waugh ihe date; 13f this demand and cancemiag the claim of Tm Star
’tfia‘t
yam have refused 1c: pay fur abstract services perfmmed on behalf 0f LGBS as
“welt as any ES! yam may use 19' "suppmt yew ciaims or defenssas m this case

-_"£3fr

7 ,j‘

Adaquate presawafim 9f ESI requires mare man simply? mfiaining fmm
destmy or dispose 0f such evidence You musi 31333 i‘ntewene ti; pmvent
less due tn {mane operations and empiey proper techniques and protomls suited
19 [ha pmte-cfim of ESL Be advisad that semees 3f ES! are altelad and erased by
mniinued use 0f yaw mznputers and aiher devices. Bowing a drive: examimng
running any appiicaiiun wig; ineifievabiy alter the avideme it
:13 mnten’is
mnlains and may commute uniawhst spofiaiéan of evidence. Censequenfly?
aiterafim and erasure may ream fawn your faiiure to ac! diligentiy and respansfiaiy
14) prawn: Brass 0r campaign d E33.
effcrls 110

m

Nothing in this demand for presentation of ES! shank! be understood
to diminish your concurrent obh’gatfon to
document, tangible
things and other polentiafly mievant evidence.

pmem

Suspension of Routine Destmction

You are directed

to immediateiy inmate a litigatian hflld for potentially

remvant ES! decumenis and tangibie things and t0 act diligently and in good
secure and audit mmpiiance wiah such tigaficn hold Yfiu are fume!"
ammednately idéhfify and mndify {3r suspend faaiunes a:
_jfiimcmd
mfmmatmn systems and devices mat m mutam ogaeration operate lo cause 1m
lass uf polemialiy refevan! ES: Exampies at such features and emtions
faith to

-

m

3E

m

-‘

’

'

include:
a»

v

Paging the mntems of email mmsitmies by age, capamty m

d.

‘6.:'iv‘:,i"l.-I.l.fi.32¢},

9mm mm;

3.;U3ing- dale (gai media wiping, dismsa‘l mi erasure or awypfion uiilitias car defines;
flvemmtmg, eraswg, destmying 0r 'discarding back up media;
T’JRe—assagnmg, reamagmg or. dismsang oi swims Emery, devices or media;
?TRunnmg aniiviz‘us Jot Other programs efieéfiing Whalés'ale metadafa
gf’Reieasmg hr purgingonline siora'ge repusltanes

aim;

Usmg meia‘flata

'

stripper utilities

.g-rizq:

f

o.-‘

Disablmg sewer or 1M logging; ”and
Executing drive or file defragmentafion 9r cnmpressian pragmms

_.

"

_

 Guard Against

cm

T
‘

-

7

_

Dem

"

Yau shmid anfiagale ma? war empiuyees oficers 0r
may seek to hide
desimy 0r 1319? ES! "and act m prevent 0r guard against such acflms. Especiaiiy where
mmpmy manhinés have been used for internei amass 0r personai cammumcafims
ta" delate
destroy infamaiian they regam
13pm shame! antlmpaie that user's may seek
{3r
embarrassmg
cranfdennal
so
pasonai
and
in
deing
may a1 $9 deflate fir destiny
a5
This
wmam
is not one unique m yea
53016111133 y reievani E81
your emplayees' and
th'ai
tslemurs with such regulan'fy in eSectmmc discovery
51mph: an em:
nifmers ii
afiafls that any custadian 0f ES! and their mmsal are abligaied m anticipate and

m

f
=

:

m

I

‘
'-

2‘:

i

'

_
‘

Tagamsi iis

W

mm

'
'

Presehirafifln'by

Yflu shank! {aka affimaiive
systems

steps

am amhives fmm seeking

m

"tn

imam-

ng'

prevem anyme whim amass lo yam data

modify. destmy 0r hide electronic eviderm On
land hard drives (such as deieiing Gr avemriiing flies, using dam shading

1131me
and avemiflng applicaficafis,

two

defiagmen‘étaiian‘ re-imaging

car

repiacing drivesq

m

Wsssion;

sieg-amgraphy or the like} With [egpeci
19ml hard drives.
{me way t0 meted existing daia 9n 10333 hand drives is by the creafion and
aulhents'aaiim
a wrensicasly quaiified image 0f ail seciors mf me drive. Such a
forenstcafiy quaiified dupiicaie may aim be cafled a bilstream image ta? done m‘ the
diive, Be advised that a cementimai back up 0f a hard dfive is mat a famsicaliy
qualified image becaus-e ii aniy mptures active uniocked data files and fails {o preserve
fmeqzsicaiay significmi data that may exist in sum areas as unallecaiad 398m, slack
space and the Swap ma
encrypfinn,

m

With reaped

to the

ham times and

named beiow and 0f each persm

storage devises {3f each 0f the pmsms
acting in the capacity GI helding the job tilie namad

beiew. as well as each nther person

tikesy to have "mformatim pertaining to the instant
computer hard drive(sL demand is made that yau immediaaely obtain,
authenticate and presme forensicafly quaiified images of the hard dn‘ves in any
mmputer System (inciuding portabie and home computers) used by that person during
me [3mm from Januaw 2012 to the pheaent as wail as recerding and mesming the
system time and date cf each such coinputer

adieu 0n

__

their

'

awn Franks
:-:.::.j"“;".

Pam Joimsori

_

'5

l'.

Q'

Rosanna (3051011;
Ruth Green; afid

¢ -.:-Peggy

McGenmck

I“
=

5;__.:_f_
'
=

‘

I

jg;

0am untamed

fdate

each Such

flammsmon

meduum fmm wind]
gaitemnon-:r‘-:-.-:.-.-.

it

and the system and
was obtamed Each Sim image shank! be pmewed wifimt

._
_

Manama; maimed image should be awed to identify the

the person or entity acquiring the image

_

7

 mem‘iun in Native Form
Yau shwkl anfimpate ma! ceriain E83 inciumawg but n91 limiied Ia spmadsheefs
énd databases wiii be swam m the form 0r fmms in Wish i: is andinarily maintamed
Acmmngiy gm shsuid presewe ES! m such native farms afid yam shuwd net select
ans in preserve E33 {hat remma 55 fiegrade the ability t0 Search 3mm ES? by
mafia it diffiwfi m burdensome m access 0r use the
eiectmmc mamas
efiaflweiy 533mg ibis mama} QC: f0 itfigaticm

'_

-

:-

m

-

513mm

_Metadata
_

.

Yum: 5min}3:3 father aniz'aipate the

Mucé sysiam and

need to diflosa and
Sysm metadata

appficalm metadma am: at?! in mserve it.

me h?giflry and characiensnes {3f mmr ES!

This informatien

és

irfinmafian desmtmg

is 13:13:63in

awmiatad swim

{making er managing an eierfimnic fiie and after) inciudes data reflecting a fiie 3 name
size: mstodian, .iocaiizon and daie-s 0f creaflm and last modificafiun or access
Appfication metadaia is infmnation amanaaiicafly inciuded Gr embedded in dammit;
flies but which may nut be apparent
a user, induding deieied cantent, drafl language,
mmmentary, coliabmalm and distribution data and dates 9f Greafimn and mating Be
aflvised {hat metadata may be overwfitten 0r corrupted by careless handiing 0r
improper steps ta preserve E31. For electronic mail, metadala includes ax header
routing data and Base 64 venmded attachment data, in addiiim to the T0, From,
Subjem, Received Dale, CC and EEC flaws.

m

Servers
With respeci ta sewers flee lhase used to manage electronic mail (e.g. Mimaafi
Exdmange, Lntus Deming} 0r netwwk
(after! called a ufier‘s “network sham"),
[he mplete cantents 0f each user s :19th sham and email 3mm!“ should be
preserved. mere are several ways 1e preserve fine cements 0f a sewer depending
upon, e.g., its RAID cmfiwation and memes“ it can be downed or must be onfirae 24f?
If you questian whether the preservatitm method yen pursue is one that we will accept
as sufficient please call to discuss i1.

51W

_

Home Systems, Laptops 01mm Accounts and Other ES! Venues
‘

"

--'

Thaug} wfa expect that you win act swim to presewe data on office mmstatim
and semen ynu should 3131:» (lemme if any hams or portabie systems may cantain

f_

potentiafly relevant data. To the extent that officers partners beam members or
e'm‘pioyees have sent 0r received potentiafly relevani emails 01 created 0r neviewed

.-

._"

1'

potenuafly duwments away fmm the ofiice yaou must preserva the cements 0f systerm.
dewces and media used ior these purposes (including nut snly potentially relevant dale
from portable and name computers hm 3350 from pertabie thumb drives CD R disks
and the: user 5' PBA 3mm phone voice mailbox or other farms 9f E8! storaga )
Simulariy, :fampinvees Qfiicers partners 0r board manners uSed online‘ er brawser—
based email accaunts or sewices (such as AOL Gmai! Yahrm Mail er the like; to send
bf receive potmfiafly relevant messages and anachments thsi mutants of these
ammml mailboxes (mciudang Sent; Dekte‘d and mmived Massage folders) shmfld be

 _

Afiéiilary Pfiesaniatim

I.

.

Yen must preserve ducumems and ciher tangible iie-ms ihai may be raquired to
annex interpret er search potentially relevant E31 including flags mntmi sheets
spanificahnns mamas. nammg prommis fiie lists netwam diagrams flaw charts
mfimcfiom sheets dam aniw fems abhmviatian Rays user ID anti passwam masters or
"

-

the iikfl
Yam:

i

amass

must

33mm any @33st

eneryqaied mais-

m ma appiicamns

manuals and iacmse keys

.

fur applib'amns

keys

m eflwr aumenticamrs mated m

33mg swam the msiaiiataoa disks user
tar:

access the E31.

Ycu mus: presewa any cabling {imam and hardware other man a standard CD
m [ND $169311dsk maze if neefled 19 access m £13th media which ES! is stored
This mamas tape drives bar made waders Zip Drives Jami} firwes and what Segacy {1r

m

mammary devices.

Paw Pfesewatitm at ES! is Inadequate
As

had copies do not preserve electronic searchabflity

an adequate substitute
infomatian

eru'sis in

9r metadata. they ate mt
er cumuiative m, eteclronically stored versims. If
esecironic and paper farms, you shmuid preserve bum forms“

for,

bum

Agents, attorneys and Third

Farms

Yam preservatian ob-ia'gaflzénn extends beyond ES!
wstody and includes E3!

én

'in

the custody 0f catherS that that

your care, possessinn O_r
is subject t9 your directinn 0r

Acmrdingly, you must nctify any current er fame: agent‘ altmnem mpigyeat
wstocfian or vconhactof in passessiw of potentiaiiy relevant ESi {a preserve such ES! t9
the full extent 9f your abiigau‘cm tn do St), and you must take reasoname steps lo secuie
contra].

their

compliance.

Preservation Protccols

.,

We are willing 10 mark with you to agree upon an acceptable premium for
{musically somd presewmion and this is particuiafly true if vow E31 Mommies
Giraud Gomputmg
and Depi amen!

Wiedme

_

.

.

I
a

am awailabie to discuss reamable preservation steps; hcwever you shmld not
siép’s‘ penciing‘ such discussions
EFS may be inst car mmmtad as a

'defef pres‘ewatich
._._.

__

-_"_

:

'3-

Do Not Delay Pres'ewafion
if

pram

cansequence 0f delay Sfiouid your faiture t0
pnianiiafiy relevant evidence
result m: ihe? campnon insisf or. d‘alay‘m pmduction of eviuence lo which we are entitled
wgfifaalwg want! mnsntute spollatmn of evidence and we will mt hesitate to seek the

 Canfirmafim] Compfimme

mafia“ by: Mammy Omaha: 9 201? aha! “yam have aaken the 3mm
Sumner} m this Iefiier 3-0 preserve E3! amt! tangibie dncumems fioiantiaaiy {e?evam [a mks
P363333

have not taken the steps maimed above, am have taken miner acia’anrs,
933339 Gamma whai 3cm: have dame m pregame paten’téaiiy reiavam evidence.
acaim.

ii

v01:

Resyectfuiiy years,

‘g’Z/{rgr
Muthaei {392:2th

Z’f fi§.(.{/£<\

  

 

1. EXHIBIT 8

 

From; Peggy ficCtstam':

m

May finé; £3913 ID: 13
1%: unstamfleQQnaTmm‘M flan: (Meseaiflfiswabej
Cc: Edward Lopez; Efid'gat Lapez; Pam Jnhmm; Jonathan Mara
Sent: Saturday;

Subject:

net};

03m Mm

LGfifismmMeefing 5128:33at4 pm

am

..

.
_

mm mmmsmwm‘ mum
u

nsmmhmammmmwm wrvahm

‘

Wemddiikakxyauiommmmfiimsrdmmmmésday,Hayzfimfma4mfimefing. lwifihewmameefitg

mmmmmaHMe—M mwflmwemmMMMmmm.MmmMmaua
Wmmdmwm,mmmfidmmhamexmammm.
Youatewelmmek:

mmmmmfimmmmmflfl.WWWMKhh

mmhxmsRmanyafimshfimanmwosfims. mmeiustletmmwsamtlmnmmammma
We are asking flint anyone warts with 3m:

dummmmwmm

gathering data or doing the abstracts, also

amend this meeting K

warn lo mm ml“: mu ism review of any mack; and balances
0m
prom m1 bath LGE&$ and your mfi might have In mane bah" ma alumni: finally get Lo attorney nevi“ (a
pnssiblc.

days

hm Hag)

Topics to

be muemd include:

reflewdihesummmmm hemmed wmkplmfarthemmainéex oflheyear.
wil be implemented
upda‘es m he e-fifng syszem
DalaWamand Damon afiectiwe 1-1-2014

>A
3.

>

thai

fur

Updam on any District Glam o: Com pmoess menges — induding infimmafim avaiatfle 0n ROAM m 063852?

m

> Specific abaract issues

our adorneys have encountmed during Ina past year

> Quesfions that wt! mbghlhave farm attomeys

or for!

81388 abnul research system amass or m-quhd documentation

mmwfifinm"PW'Wthfihnauasamcwnmfieswmmetom‘qumfimsmd
"

nfmm'

provde‘

_'afinfito_ymmfibismmhn‘g.

_

flhymfl~Weflhmwsmdsfllmmmmdem diam. andromumftdn

Weaweualewff“

ammwmsevrm amwmssmfitosamgmmemmrm

Opannms Mihagu
_

=

_-

yiAflflnefifilmw

A

.

Imbargchognmm—&mm
"

‘

‘

,
I

.333

Bum Sm Sit 1603

Dallas

Mam

TX ?520i

izlqyssqws'?

‘

"

2

9mm {mizzrsm
Per. (214}

154436?

hltptfinm w‘:gi:s.rm=

”‘3

Emmy?
Ifilfi‘mfi

MBZHESJJF

c

I

 Foss'iblé dataé
1

message

«?vgmr
:Tao‘:

-

-

-§

»

WMmam*Pemhwgmm
{813mm

“Tangier Tziie‘

{er Resaiifid casi’ma

,-

fér'fibsmcior’Meéfing
I

-

I

Wam.m>
maimflnsWWME-

_

_

wadFeasthama‘agsgamax--

mm)“

5

{3m mwmfisnm

Gmamymmmmtmhammmmwmmfieammmvflmm kmmmm may

—

L‘

yam

hhaVea—nanmaimmmmfigm
WawanymwpmmandMMNmWis
mmfiafififiwmesmmmup Wiaameefingmhaflmsmyis Ems mmmlaammmm

mfifiWMMmesWe-fiag

mug

fufiwwflmmmmwwtmmflmdmmmhm—MMWQMMWW
mwmmmmjsmmma mmazmwflmhasWMEHMM.

W,
1.1mm,

Feb 23‘“

Feb 26m

mun.

Mann“

wed,

mam“

PIeaseleMaekermyufflmdafismkfaryoummmwammmas: s,mmmeofommmmyhmm
change

adm apptanthezfd.

We win pnepare an agmda and make sum

em

has plenty oi time to gather anymmg {hey wi mad.

.memma—mmmfinmfimtmmmm
mmmmeNammmmmm
mmkwboflmfomfm

m
‘

I

3353mm

m

mkmfi hill

ammng Main

dis

'

_:.':_‘_hnehmgnr Giaggas

BiairfiSampmn, LL?

---,_‘1:Aflnmcys at-La'w

fl

-

"

'

7_

r

n

.

_

"

V

I

'

ff-“Peggyhi@igb$mm
??’??.N

.

Siemmms Freeway Sun: H300
-»

;:.'-':-:Danas

T157529?

.__

_

V_

.

_‘

iMmivmmm-mga

~.“:.:

»

_»

j;

Fax: {214)

J.”

--

f'fbm(469)_21_5&m
'

.

‘

754316"

Jv---;'_.“...,—

Mmiiwwwlghacomi
.xu.

This

mmmmm um be:

(3

)snbgmmm: .érmmhflhmt

P'zmiegt. (21 ma

mama? mafia mmixm

m (33 szficth mfidmial

l!"

-

:

,.

I

amfl'MHV.