Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Responses

CAUSE NO. CC-10-08658-E

FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AJ LAW INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A § ^ LOST SOCIETY, §

§ Plaintiffs §

V A

<£.

NO. 5 ^

^

e V.

s*

\

\

%

% • '

' \ % . - ^

^ ^ "^

%̂^ -

§ AVI S. ADELMAN, BARKINGDOGS.ORG, § AND DALLAS CREATIVE, INC., §

§ Defendants. 8 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS. AND FOR COSTS AND FEES

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 191.3 and 215.1, Defendants Avi S.

Adelman, Barkingdogs.org (erroneously sued as Barkingdog.org), and Dallas Creative

(erroneously sued as Dallas Creative, Inc.) (collectively, "Defendants") file this Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses, to Compel Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' Discovery

Requests, and for Costs and Fees, and respectfully show the Court the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 7, 2011, Defendants served on Plaintiffs Fernando Resales and Initiative

Partners, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Defendants' First Requests for Production, First

Requests for Admissions, and First Set of Interrogatories.1 After requesting an extension of time

and then ignoring the parties' agreed-upon deadlines, Plaintiffs finally delivered discovery

responses to Defendants on March 25, 2011. However, Plaintiffs' counsel did not sign any of

1 A true and correct copy of Defendants' First Requests for Production, First Requests for Admissions, and First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND FOR COSTS AND FEES

http://BARKINGDOGS.ORG

http://Barkingdogs.org

http://Barkingdog.org

the discovery responses, and Plaintiffs did not verify their interrogatory answers. Each of

Plaintiffs' discovery responses must therefore be stricken for failure to comply with the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiffs' responses must be stricken, the Court should

compel Plaintiffs to respond properly and fully to Defendants' discovery requests. Moreover,

the Court should overrule Plaintiffs' objections to Defendants' discovery requests because any

objections are untimely. Likewise, Defendants' First Requests for Admissions are automatically

deemed admitted due to Plaintiffs' failure to timely respond. Finally, Defendants are entitled to

costs and attorneys' fees incurred in preparing this Motion.

II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES SHOULD BE STRICKEN.

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require that "[e]very disclosure, discovery request,

notice, response, and objection must be signed . . . by an attorney, if the party is represented by

an attorney." TEX. R. Civ. P. 191.3(a). Here, Plaintiffs delivered the following to Defendants on

March 25, 20112: (1) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Request for Disclosure3; (2) Plaintiffs'

Responses to Defendants' First Request for Production4; (3) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants'

First Request for Admissions5; and (4) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Set of

2 Plaintiffs did not properly serve their responses on Defendants using any of the methods permitted under Rule 21a. Rather, Plaintiffs delivered the responses to Defendants via e-mail on March 25, 2011. See E-mail from Mercari Negotiator to Tyler Bexley, attached hereto as Exhibit B-l.

" A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Request for Disclosure is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 4 A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Request for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5 A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Request for Admissions is attached hereto as Exhibit E.


Interrogatories.6 Plaintiffs' attorney did not sign any of these documents. See Exs. C, D, E, and

F. Pursuant to Rule 191.3, "[i]f a request, notice, response, or objection is not signed, it must be

stricken." TEX. R. Civ. P. 191.3(c). Each of Plaintiffs' responses must therefore be stricken.

Further, with respect to interrogatories "[a] responding party—not an agent or attorney as

otherwise permitted by Rule 14—must sign the answers under oath." TEX. R. Civ. P. 197.2(d).

Because neither Plaintiff Fernando Resales nor any authorized agent of Plaintiff Initiative

Partners verified their answers to the interrogatories, see Ex. F, those answers should be stricken.

B. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES.

"'[T]he ultimate purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided

by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed.'" In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968

S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (quoting Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex. 1984)). A

party is entitled to obtain discovery about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case.

TEX. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); see Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990).

Information is discoverable as long as it appears "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence." TEX. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a).

Here, Defendants' requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence, as required by Rule 192.3. Specifically, Defendants seek documents

relating to (1) the allegedly false statements on Defendants' weblog, (2) actions and events that

were the subject of the allegedly false statements, and (3) Plaintiffs' asserted damages.

Similarly, Defendants' interrogatories ask for (1) the identity of persons with knowledge of

A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit F.


relevant facts, (2) specific identification of any allegedly defamatory statements, (3) information

that may establish the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements, and (4) information related to

Plaintiffs' asserted damages. Given that each of these requests is related to the elements of

Plaintiffs' asserted claims and Defendants' defenses, each request is within the scope of

permissible discovery. As such, Defendants respectfully request that the Court compel Plaintiffs

to respond to their First Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories within ten (10)

days of the date of its order.

1. Plaintiffs should be compelled to respond properly and fully to Defendants' discovery requests because Plaintiffs' prior responses must be stricken.

When a party fails to respond to discovery.requests as required by the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure, the trial court may compel the party's response. TEX. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). Here,

as shown in Section A, supra, procedural deficiencies in Plaintiffs' responses mandate that the

responses be stricken. Thus, Plaintiffs have, in effect, failed to respond to Defendants' discovery

requests, and the Court should therefore order Plaintiffs to respond fully within ten (10) days of

the date of its order.

2. The Court should overrule Plaintiffs' untimely objections and compel Plaintiffs to fully respond to Defendants' discovery requests.

A party resisting discovery must make objections in writing within the time for response.

TEX. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). "An objection that is not made within the time required, or that is

obscured by numerous unfounded objections, is waived unless the court excuses the waiver for

good cause shown." TEX. R. ClV. P. 193.2(e).

Here, Defendants served their First Requests for Production and First Set of

Interrogatories on Plaintiffs on February 7, 2011. See Ex. A. Under the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' requests were due March 14, 2011. See TEX. R.


Civ. P. 196.2(a) (response to request for production due within thirty days after service of the

request) and 197.2(a) (same deadline for response to interrogatories). As a courtesy, Defendants

agreed to extend Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the discovery requests to March 23, 2011. See

Rule 11 Letter Dated March 8, 2011 (filed March 11, 2011). Because Plaintiffs' responses must

be stricken for the reasons set forth in Section A, supra. Plaintiffs objections are untimely and

are therefore waived. Even if Plaintiffs' responses are not stricken, Plaintiffs' objections are still

untimely because Plaintiffs did not deliver discovery responses to Defendants until March 25,

2011, two days after the deadline to which Plaintiffs specifically agreed. See Ex. B-l.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs waived any objections to Defendants' discovery requests, and the Court

should compel Plaintiffs to fully respond to Defendants' First Requests for Production and First

Set of Interrogatories.

C. DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED ADMITTED.

Under Rule 198.2, a party must serve a written response to requests for admissions within

thirty days of the request. TEX. R. Civ. P. 198.2(a). If a response is not timely served, the

requests are considered conclusively established as a matter of law without the necessity of a

court order. TEX. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c). "Thus, after the expiration of thirty days after the date of

service, and in the absence of a motion to extend time for filing a response, the requests for

admissions are automatically deemed admitted and the trial court has no discretion to deem, or

refuse to deem, the admissions admitted." Curry v. Clayton, 715 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1986, no writ).

Here, for the reasons set forth in Section A, supra. Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants'

First Requests for Admissions must be stricken. Thus, Plaintiffs have, in effect, failed to serve

any response to Defendants' request. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs' responses are not stricken, the


responses were not timely served on Defendants. By agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs were

required to serve their responses on Defendants by March 18, 2011. See Rule 11 Letter Dated

March 8, 2011 (filed March 11, 2011). However, Plaintiffs delivered (by e-mail rather than by

an appropriate method of service) their responses to Defendants on March 25, 2011. Because

Plaintiffs' responses were untimely—and, indeed, must be stricken altogether—^Defendants'

First Requests for Admissions are automatically deemed admitted.

D. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and

have improperly withheld relevant discovery, Plaintiffs should be required to pay Defendants'

costs and attorneys' fees incurred in preparing, filing, and presenting this Motion. In granting a

motion to compel, a court ''''shall, after opportunity for hearing, require a party whose conduct

necessitated the motion or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay . . . the

reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees," unless such an

award would be unjust. TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.1(d) (emphasis added). Because there are no

exigent circumstances to justify Plaintiffs' conduct here, an award of costs and attorneys' fees is

appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Avi S. Adelman, Barkingdogs.org, and Dallas Creative

respectfully pray:

' Plaintiffs initially served on Defendants a response to Defendants' Requests for Admissions on March 7, 2011. However, because that response merely asserted the same generic and unfounded objections to each request, Plaintiffs entered into a Rule 11 agreement with Defendants under which Plaintiffs would retract this response and file a proper response no later than March 18, 2011. See Rule 11 Letter Dated March 8, 2011 (filed March 11, 2011).



1. That the Court strike Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Request for Disclosures,

First Requests for Production, First Requests for Admissions, and First Set of Interrogatories;

2. That the Court compel Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' First Requests for

Production and First Set of Interrogatories within ten (10) days of the date of its order;

3. That the Court acknowledge that Defendants' Requests for Admissions are

deemed admitted;

4. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation, filing,

and presenting of this Motion; and

5. For all other relief to which Defendants are entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.

1 Thomas S. Leatherbury

State Bar No. 12095275 William D. Sims, Jr.

State Bar No. 18429500 Lisa R. Helem

State Bar No. 24072145 Tyler J. Bexley

State Bar No. 24073923 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201-2975 Telephone: 214.220.7792 Facsimile: 214.999.7792

Attorneys for Defendants Avi S. Adelman, Barkingdogs.org, and Dallas Creative



CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on April 18, 2011, I conferred with opposing counsel on the merits of this motion. A reasonable effort was made to resolve the dispute without the necessity of court intervention, and the effort failed. Therefore, it is presented to the Court for determination.

-M

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 26, 2011 a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was served on the following counsel of record by certified mail, return receipt requested:

Armando Miranda 923 West Jefferson Dallas, TX 75208

Attorney for Plaintiffs

iP-U/


EXHIBIT A


FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A § LOST SOCIETY, §

§ Plaintiffs §

§ v. § NO. 5

§ §

AVI S. ADELMAN, BARKINGDOGS.ORG, § AND DALLAS CREATIVE, INC., §

§ Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION. AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO: Plaintiffs Fernando Resales and Initiative Partners, LLC, d/b/a Lost Society, by and through their attorney of record, Armando Miranda, 923 West Jefferson, Dallas, TX 75208

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Avi S. Adelman,

BarkingDogs.org (erroneously sued as BarkingDog.org), and Dallas Creative (erroneously sued

as Dallas Creative, Inc.) hereby request that Plaintiffs Fernando Rosales and Initiative Partners,

LLC. d/b/a Lost Society respond fully to these Requests for Production, Requests for Admission,

and First Set of Interrogatories within 30 days. Plaintiffs shall serve their responses and all

responsive documents on Defendants' counsel, Thomas S. Leatherbury, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.,

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas 75201.

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 1


http://BarkingDogs.org

http://BarkingDog.org

1. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. "Mr. Rosales" means "Fernando Rosales" and any agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting on his behalf.

2. "Initiative Partners" means "Initiative Partners, LLC" and any agents, employees, attorneys and other persons acting on its behalf, including "Lost Society."

3. "Lost Society" means the establishment operated as "Initiative Partners, LLC, d/b/a Lost Society."

4. "You" or "Your" means "Fernando Rosales" and any agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting on his behalf.

5. "Plaintiffs" means collectively "Fernando Rosales" and "Initiative Partners, LLC, d/b/a Lost Society."

6. "Defendants" means collectively "Avi S. Adelman," "BarkingDogs.org," and "Dallas Creative."

7. "Mr. Nwatu" means "Brightman Ohiagu Nwatu," also known as "Brian Nwatu," and any agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting on his behalf.

8. "Mr. Miranda" means "Jesus Armando Miranda," and/or "Armando Miranda," Plaintiffs' attorney of record.

9. "Mr. Adelman" means "Defendant Avi S. Adelman" and any agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting on his behalf.

10. "Challenged weblog articles," unless otherwise specified in the specific request, means the June 3, 2010; June 6, 2010; June 10, 2010; June 23, 2010; June 28, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010; September 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in Plaintiffs' Amended Petition.

11. "Petition" means Plaintiffs' Amended Petition filed in this case on December 10, 2010.

12. "Communication" means any contact whatsoever or any transmission or exchange of words, numbers, graphic material, or other information, either orally, electronically, or in writing, whether made, received, or participated in, and includes, but is not limited to, any conversation, correspondence, letter, notes, memorandum, inter-office or intra-office correspondence, telephone call, telegraph, telegram, telex, telecopy, facsimile, e-mail, Internet communication, telefax, cable, electronic message, tape recording, discussion, face-to-face meeting, or conference of any kind (whether in person, by audio, video, telephone, or in any other form).

13. "Document" means any document within the scope of Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, including but not limited to, any writing in your custody, possession or control or known to you—whether printed, recorded, reproduced by any process, or written or produced by



hand—^including, but not limited to, papers, books, accounts, data, data compilations, letters, reports, agreements, opinions, communications, calendars or day-timers, correspondence, emails, telegrams, memoranda, summaries, records of personal conversations, photographs, electronic, videotape or audiotape recordings, information or data stored electronically, including that stored on computer or computer disk, graphs, charts, drawings, exhibits, records, invoices, and receipts. The term "documents" also includes all electronic documents, including emails that have been deleted. Any comment or notation appearing on any document, and not a part of the original text, is to be considered a separate "document."

14. "Person" means any individual, entity, or association of individuals or entities of any kind, and includes partnerships, limited partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, joint enterprises, trade associations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, or government entities of any kind.

15. "Representative" means any officer, director, owner, shareholder, partner, joint venturer, associate, employee, servant, agent, representative, subsidiary, or affiliate of the Person; and any other Persons or legal or business entities acting for, on behalf of, or in concert with the Person, including consultants, advisors, lawyers, investment bankers, accountants, and anyone else engaged, retained, or employed by the Person.

16. "Relating to," "referring to," and "concerning" are used in their broadest sense, and shall mean anything that, directly or indirectly, generally or specifically, regards, relates to, refers to, concerns, contains, constitutes, contradicts, evidences, embodies, comprises, reflects, mentions, identifies, states, deals with, comments on, responds to, describes, analyzes, or is in any way, directly or indirectly, relevant to the subject.

17. Any request or response to any request involving a corporation or other business entity or any other entity shall also refer to and include any and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, joint venturers, agents, employees, representatives, accountants, investment bankers, or attorneys acting on behalf of the corporation or other entity.

18. "Including" and "includes" shall mean "without limitation."

19. "Any" and "all" shall mean "any and all" or "each and every."

20. "And" and "or" shall mean "and/or." The term "and/or" shall be construed so as to require the broadest response.

21. The past tense shall include the present tense and vice versa.

22. Terms in the singular shall include the plural, and terms in the plural shall include the singular.

23. Terms not defined in these discovery requests shall have the meanings used in the pleadings or, if not used in the pleadings, the usual and ordinary meaning.


24. Any documents withheld on a claim of privilege must be preserved. If any documents are so withheld, Defendants hereby request, pursuant to Rule 193.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that you identify in a privilege list or log each such document and provide the information set forth in Rule 193.3(b).

25. In producing documents and materials, you are requested to furnish all documents or things in your possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such documents or materials are possessed directly by you or your directors, officers, partners, members, agents, employees, representatives, subsidiaries, managing agents, affiliates, investigators, or by your attorneys or their agents, employees, representatives, or investigators.

26. This request requires the originals to be produced for inspection and copying, if they exist and are in your possession, custody, control, or access, including documents within the possession, custody, or control of your officers, directors, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and other persons or entities who have acted or purported to act on your behalf.

27. Documents not otherwise responsive to the discovery requests shall be produced if such documents mention, discuss, refer to, or explain the documents that are called for by the discovery request, or if such documents are attached to documents called for by the discovery request.

28. If any document was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state whether it: (a) is missing or is lost; (b) has been destroyed; (c) has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, to others; or (d) is otherwise disposed of. In each instance explain the circumstances of such disposition, state the approximate date thereof, and identify all persons having knowledge of the document's contents.

29. Please produce all electronic or magnetic data or media in electronic or magnetic form on compact discs (CDs) or DVDs pursuant to Rule 196.4.

30. These Requests are continuing in nature. If you become aware of or acquire in your possession, custody, or control additional responsive documents or tangible things, you are requested promptly to provide such additional documents.

31. Unless otherwise indicated, the relevant time period for these requests is January 1, 2008 to the present.


II. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

GENERAL REQUESTS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in this case that you claim are false and/or not substantially true. Your production should include, but is not limited to documents, correspondence, and communication relating to the June 3,2010; June 6,2010; June 10,2010; June 23,2010; June 28, 2010; June 30,2010; July 2,2010; September 11,2010; October 21, 2010; October 30,2010; and December 4,2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all Documents mentioning, discussing, or referencing: (a) this lawsuit; (b) the claims alleged by you in this lawsuit; (c) the articles that are at issue in this lawsuit; and/or (d) the statements at issue in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog articles. This request includes but is not limited to any documents relating to the June 3, 2010; June 6,2010; June 10,2010; June 23,2010; June 28,2010; June 30,2010; July 2, 2010; Sept. 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all Documents and correspondence between you and Mr. Adelman.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all Documents in your possession, custody, or control relating to, referring to or mentioning Mr. Adelman or BarkingDogs.org.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention you.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention Mr. Nwatu.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all Documents relating to, showing, and/or demonstrating any damages alleged by you in this lawsuit, including all actual, general, presumed, special, exemplary, and/or other form of damages claimed by you in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce your most current resume and/or curriculum vitae.



REQUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO.il: Produce all Documents demonstrating any emotional and/or mental distress allegedly suffered by you as a result of the statements at issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all Documents relating to, containing, discussing, or mentioning any psychological evaluation and/or psychiatric evaluation of you.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all Documents relating to any psychological, psychiatric, or mental health treatment you have received, including diagnoses, treatment plans, and prescriptions.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all income and revenue earned by you since 2007. These documents will include your tax returns since 2007.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all companies, partnerships, and/or other businesses in which you have served as an officer or director.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all Documents relating to the creation of Initiative Partners and the establishment of Lost Society bar in Dallas, Texas.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all lawsuits, arbitrations, judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings to which you have been a party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce all Documents relating to Lost Society's license to serve alcohol in the City of Dallas and State of Texas during the following years: (a) 2008, (b) 2009, (c) 2010, and (d) 2011. This includes all Documents regarding licenses or permits to serve alcohol that have been granted, refused, suspended, and/or revoked by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission during any of those years.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all Documents relating to any and all licensing proceedings by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission against you or your establishment, Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Nwatu's current or former co-ownership of Lost Society and/or Mr. Nwatu's partnership in Initiative Partners. This request will include any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest that Mr. Nwatu has or has had in Lost Society, Initiative Partners, and/or both entities. This request will include documents relating to any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest by Mr. Nwatu in any predecessors-in-interest or successors-in-interest of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Nwatu's United States citizenship status for the years 2006 to 2011. This request will include documents, communication, and correspondence from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.


http://REQUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO.il

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Rosales's current or former co-ownership of Lost Society and/or partnership in Initiative Partners. This request will include any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest that Mr. Rosales has or has had in Lost Society, Initiative Partners, and/or both entities. This request will include documents relating to any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest by Mr. Rosales in any predecessors-in-interest or successors-in-interest of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners.

SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UNDERLYING TRANSACTIONS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Produce all Documents sufficient to show your knowledge of Mr. Adelman's weblog postings. This request includes Documents relating to your access of the BarkingDogs.org website. Your production should include, but is not limited to documents, communications, and correspondence relating to your knowledge of and access to the June 3, 2010; June 6,2010; June 10, 2010; June 23, 2010; June 28, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010; Sept. 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and/or December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all Documents relating to "business dealings" Mr. Rosales and/or Initiative Partners had in place at the time of the challenged weblog articles referred to in paragraph 23 of your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Produce all Documents relating to, showing, and/or demonstrating any lost business opportunities you allege are a result of, caused by, and/or attributable to Defendants' publication(s).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged copyright infringement you contend Defendants' committed on Paragraph 18 of your Amended Complaint. This request includes, but is not limited to documentation, correspondence, and/or communications relating to the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 of your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged copyright held by Plaintiffs. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation, correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged trademark law violation you allege Defendants committed in paragraph 16 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to documents relating to the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 of your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged trademark held by Plaintiffs during the time of the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13, 14,15, and 16 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to, documentation from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents relating to Plaintiffs' reputation in the community during the time period of the challenged weblog articles. This request includes, but is not limited to documents, correspondence, and communication evidencing (a) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners; (b) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Mr. Rosales; or (c) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Mr. Nwatu. This request includes documents, correspondence, or communication from the following time periods: (a) from Lost Society's opening to June 3, 2010—the date of the first challenged weblog article; (b) between June 3, 2010 and December 4, 2010—the date span from the first challenged weblog article to the last challenged article; and (c) during any other relevant time period in which Lost Society's reputation was formed, established, and/or injured by any party or parties, including parties not named in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all Documents relating to Plaintiffs' knowledge of an alleged call by Mr. Adelman to the Dallas Sheriffs Office on June 10, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 20 and 21 of your Amended Petition.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all Documents relating to alleged injury to Plaintiffs' reputation allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged June 10, 2010 call.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Produce all Documents relating to the Plaintiffs' knowledge of and access to the challenged weblog article on June 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your Amended Petition.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Produce all Documents relating to the Defendants' alleged knowledge of falsity of statements allegedly made in the challenged weblog article on June 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your Amended Petition.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged infringement of a copyright allegedly held by Mr. Rosales in an alleged photograph. The alleged photograph is referenced in paragraphs 26 and 27 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation, correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of June 28, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of June 28,2010 referenced in paragraphs 28,29 and 30.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of June 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of June 30,2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of July 2,2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11,2010 referenced in paragraphs 36,37, and 38.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40,41, 42, 43, and 44.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45,46, and 47.


III. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that you were indicted for making a false statement in a public filing.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that you are currently being charged with a felony or misdemeanor.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you, Initiative Partners, and/or Lost Society are being investigated or have been investigated by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission for possible violations of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that you have sold Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that you are in the process of selling Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that you have not reported the sale to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Mr. Nwatu is or was a co-owner, partner, or joint venturer of Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Mr. Nwatu is or was employed by Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Mr. Nwatu was arrested for and/or charged with the offense of subterfuge ownership in violation of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Mr. Nwatu was arrested for and/or charged with assault.

REQUESTFORADMISSIONNO.il: Admit that Mr. Nwatu was arrested for and/or charged with assault in connection with an incident that occurred at Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that you, Initiative Partners, and/or Lost Society were investigated by the Southern Methodist University Police Department.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you and/or Initiative Partners do not own a registered trademark for the name "Lost Society."

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that your landlord charged you with violating your lease while operating Lost Society.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that patrons of Lost Society were arrested on October 21, 2010 in connection with a shooting incident.

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page n

http://REQUESTFORADMISSIONNO.il

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that patrons of Lost Society were arrested on June 3,2010 in connection with a shooting incident.


IV. INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons with knowledge of any facts relevant to this lawsuit. Briefly state (2-3 sentences) the substance of each person's knowledge.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify with specificity the statements by the Defendants that you are challenging in this lawsuit. Your response should include, but not be limited to, the publication(s) in which each such statement appears, the applicable page number, and the precise words of each such statement (in quotations).

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For all statements identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify all persons with knowledge of facts that you believe support your contention that such statements are false and defamatory.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention you since 2008. Your answer should include any such references on any internet website and/or weblog.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify (by style, cause number, filing date, court, alleged causes of action, attorneys involved, status, and outcome) every lawsuit, bankruptcy, judicial proceeding (civil or criminal), arbitration, and/or administrative proceeding to which you have been a party.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify (by style, cause number, filing date, court, alleged causes of action, attorneys involved, status, and outcome) every lawsuit, bankruptcy, judicial proceeding, arbitration, and/or administrative proceeding to which Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society have been a party.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all criminal proceedings in which you have been involved. Your response should include, but not be limited to, all arrests, traffic tickets, indictments, criminal information or other charges, pleas, and trials.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify all government investigations in which Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society have been involved. Your response should include, but not be limited to, investigations by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County Sheriffs Office, City of Dallas, and any other national, state, or local government agency.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify any crimes or alleged crimes that have taken place on the premises owned by Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society. Your answer should identify the victims and perpetrators, any law enforcement agency involved, and the result of any criminal proceedings.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all persons (other than your attorneys) with whom you have discussed this lawsuit and/or the allegations in this lawsuit.

INTERROGATORYNO.il: State fully, completely, and in detail by category, each and every item of actual, general, presumed, special, exemplary, and/or other damages that you claim against any of the defendants in this lawsuit, the dollar amount of each item of damage, and a


http://INTERROGATORYNO.il

detailed description of how you calculated the dollar amount of such damages. Your description should include each element of damage or component of recovery that you seek, the amount sought for each element or component, the manner in which each element or component of the calculation was determined, and the source of each number used in the calculation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all business and/or economic opportunities that you contend were lost as a result of the publication of the statements at issue in this lawsuit. Your answer should include the "business dealings" Mr. Rosales and/or Initiative Partners had in place at the time of the challenged weblog articles referred to in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Itemize, by dollar amount, your income for each year since 2007 and your expected income for 2011.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Itemize, by dollar amount. Initiative Partners' and/or Lost Society's income for each year since 2008 and its expected income for 2011.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify (by name, address, type of professional, and approximate time frame you saw them) all physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors, social workers, and any other medical, physical, or mental health related professionals who have evaluated, interviewed, diagnosed, tested, assessed, treated, or counseled you since 2007.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify any persons or businesses with which you have discussed the sale of Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society, or to which you have sold Initiative partners and/or Lost Society.



VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.

dL^ %JU^ Thomas S. Leatherbury

State Bar No. 12095275 Lisa R. Helem

State Bar No. 24072145 Tyler J. Bexley

State Bar No. 24073923 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201-2975 Telephone: 214.220.7792 Facsimile: 214.999.7792

Counsel for Defendants Avi S. Adelman, BarkingDogs.org, and Dallas Creative


I hereby certify that on February 7, 2011 a true and correct copy of Defendants' First Requests for Production, First Requests for Admission and First Set of Interrogatories were served on the following counsel of record by certified mail, return receipt requested:

Armando Miranda 923 West Jefferson Dallas, TX 75208

Attorney for Plaintiffs

^ %£



EXHIBIT B


FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A § LOST SOCIETY, §

§ Plaintiffs §

§ v. § NO. 5

§ §

AVI S. ADELMAN, BARKINGDOGS.ORG, § AND DALLAS CREATIVE, INC., §

§ Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFADAVIT OF TYLER J. BEXLEY

I, TYLER J. BEXLEY, being duly sworn upon my oath, hereby make this Affidavit and

state as follows:

1. My name is Tyler J. Bexley. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age, of sound

mind, and am fully competent to make this Affidavit. The facts stated in this Affidavit are

within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. I represent Avi S. Adelman,

Barkingdogs.org, and Dallas Creative, having day-to-day conduct of this litigation, and have

gained knowledge of the following matters in that capacity.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail sent on behalf

of the Law Office of Armando Miranda to me on March 25, 2011. The e-mail contained the

following attachments: (1) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Request for Disclosure; (2)

Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Request for Production; (3) Plaintiffs' Responses to

Defendants' First Request for Admissions; and (4) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Set

of Interrogatories.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

AFFIDAVIT OF TYLER J. BEXLEY Page 1



•4/ Tyler J. ©exley

Subscribed and sworn to me, a notary public, on this 21st day of April, 2011.

Notary Public

My commission expires:

• nm twiwirfi.ii j i » i> " " « *> «<???, DONNA LYNN RAMIREZ

Notary Public &_&, STATE OF TEXAS < « 5 ^ My Comm. Exp. August 22,2013

m > wm***^***** • w » » i i u « u « u

AFFIDAVIT OF TYLER J. BEXLEY Page 2

http://twiwirfi.ii

EXHIBIT B-l

of2

Bexley, Tyler

From: Mercari Negotiator [negotiatorist @gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:59 PM

To: Bexley, Tyler

Subject: Re: April 1 Injunction Hearing

Attachments: Plaintiff's Responses To Defendant's First Request for Production-1.pdf; PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES-1 .pdf; Plaintiffs' Responses To Defendant's First Request for Admissions-1.pdf; Plaintiffs' Responses To Defendant's Request For Disclosure-1 .pdf

Dear Mr Bexley:

Please find enclosed herein the Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's request for discovery. Please be put on notice that pursuant to T.R.C.P. 193.7 Plaintiff intends to use all the documents contained in Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Discovery, Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant's Requests for Discovery including any and all exhibits, at any pre-trial hearing, and/or which are disclosed in discovery, at trail.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns, please feel free to me.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICE OF ARMANDO MIRANDA

For the Firm R. Mendez, CP. 214-779-6068

P.S I am sorry for the delay our fax machine went down and converting this to PDF took a little longer than expected, please advise as to any questions.

P.S.2 The hearing remaining on the 1st is not an issue. On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Bexley, Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Miranda:

I am writing to confirm that we will leave the April 1 injunction hearing as it is instead of resetting it. Due to some scheduling issues, we decided it would be easiest to leave it as is. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Tyler J. Bexley A^nc ia ' c Vinson S Elkins LLP 1 'dnrnel G-C" Ce-'ci -"001 Ros^Avci iuo Sj i te 3700 L)dL>, TX 75 "'CI-29?5 Tel+1.214.220 7771 Fa* +1.214 999 7740 t rox l fv ffv; aw o r "

4/15/2011

http://gmail.com

mailto:[email protected]

of2

Treasury Circular 230 Disclosure: To the extent this communication contains any statement regarding federal t that statement was not written or intended to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person (i) as a basis f

federal tax penalties that may be imposed on that person, or di) to promote, market or recommend to another any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended reci

authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have re

email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system.

Thank You.

4/15/2011

EXHIBIT C


FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A § LOST SOCIETY

PLAINTIFF, § § AT LAW NUMBER 5

V. § §

AVI S. ADELMAN, § BARKINGDOGS.ORG, AND DALLAS § CREATIVE, INC §

DEFENDANTS, § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO: Defendants Avi S. Adelman, Barkingdos.org and Dallas Creative through their attorney of record, Thomas S. Leatherbury, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Ste 3700, Dallas, Texas 75201

COME NOW Plaintiffs, Fernando Rosales and Initiative Partners, LLC D/B/A Lost Society

(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs") and files this his Responses and Objections to Defendants'

Request for Disclosures pursuant to Rules 193 and 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend or supplement these answers or to add any relevant

information, which has been inadvertently excluded from these answers. In support hereof. Plaintiff

would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

I.

Plaintiff reserves the right under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to provide Defendants

with additional information responsive to Defendants' Requests for Disclosure as such information

becomes available.

Plaintiffs' Responses To Defendant's Request For Disclosure Page 1 of 5


http://Barkingdos.org

II.

RESPONSES AND OBIECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

Subject to any specific objections to certain requests as set forth below, and expressly

reserving the right to supplement the responses to these requests through deposition testimony or

otherwise, Plaintiff responds to Defendants' Requests for Disclosure as follows:

(a) The correct names of the parties to this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

Upon information and belief, all parties are named correctly.

(b) The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;

RESPONSE:

None at this time, Plaintiff is unaware of any other parties. Plaintiff will supplement this

response when and if necessary.

(c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual basis of all of your claims or defenses;

RESPONSE: (d) The amount and any method of calculating economic damages.

RESPONSE:

$50,00.00 Lost Revenue $300,000.00 Lost sale

Plaintiff acknowledges that the trier of fact will determine the Plaintiffs damages

(e) The name, address and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case. Plaintiff reserves the right to call at trial any of the following individuals who my have knowledge of relevant facts.

RESPONSE: Fernando Rosales C/O Law Office nf Armando Miranda 923 West Jefferson Dallas, Texas 75208 Plaintiff has knowledge of the circumstances of the accident made the basis of this lawsuit.


AVI S. ADELMAN, BARKINGDOGS.ORG DALLAS CREATIVE, INC C/O Thomas S. Leatherbury, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Ste 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Defendants have knowledge of the circumstances of the accident made the basis of this lawsuit.

Plaintiff reserves the right to call at trial any of the following individuals who may have knowledge of relevant facts:

1. Any individual, which have been or will be named by any party in any answer to any interrogatory and/or request for disclosures.

2. Any individual whose name appears on any document, which has been or will be produced by any party in any response to request for production;

3. Any individual whose name appears on any document, which has been or will be produced by any party in any response to request for disclosure;

4. Any individual whose name is reflected in any document, which has been or will be obtained through the use of a medical authorization;

5. Any individual whose name is reflected in any document, which has been or will be submitted to the Court by affidavit;

6. Any individual whose name is reflected in any document, which has been or will be subpoenaed by any party;

7. Any individual whose name appears in the transcript of any deposition taken in this matter; and

8. Any individual whose name is reflected in any document, which has been or will be attached to the transcript of any deposition.

(f) For any testifying expert:

(1) The expert's name, address and telephone number; (2) The subject matter on which the expert will testify; (3) The general substance of the expert's mental impressions and a brief summary of the basis for them,

or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the



responding party, documents reflecting such information; (1) If the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding

party;

(A) All documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and

(B) The expert's current resume and bibliography.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff designates the following non-retained experts:

Armando Miranda, esq. The Law Office of Armando Miranda 1029 North Zang Boulevard Dallas, Texas 75208 214-943-449 214-943-2544 Telecopier

Armando Miranda, is a licensed attorney in the State of Texas practice law in Texas, particularly in Dallas County and the surrounding and contiguous counties. He posses the knowledge and experience to evaluate the hours of time needed, and the skill level needed during those hours in order to determine the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service, properly. In addition they posses the experience, reputation, and ability to perform the services [See Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 945 SW2d 812 (TX, 1997) (citing TXDisc. Sec 1.04) R. Prof. Conduct.]

The Plaintiff reserves the right to call any expert witness, adverse or otherwise, any person designated by Defendants' independently retained experts, or person(s) affiliated with the Defendants by reserving the right to call the aforementioned experts. The Plaintiff specifically does not waive her rights to challenge any of Defendants' experts for lack of qualification, or lack of reliable opinions as prescribed in Robinson/Daubert.

Plaintiff will supplement the curriculum vitae if any when they become available to die Plaintiff.

(g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements;

RESPONSE:

None.


(h) Any discoverable settlement agreements;

RESPONSE:

None,

(i) All witness statements described in Rule 192.3 (h), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure;

RESPONSE:

Defendant was deposed by Plaintiffs attorney on or about 11-11-2010, Plainitff will supplement once transcript is received. The Plaintiff reserves the right to refer to the deposition of the Plaintiff, when and if taken as well as the deposition of the Defendant(s) and any and all witnesses of Plaintiff or Defendants.


LAW OFFICE OF ARMANDO MIRANDA 11333 North Central Expressway, Ste 213 Dallas, Texas 75243 214-779-6068 Telephone 214-363-5701 Telecopier

By: . Armando Miranda


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs' Responses To Defendant's Request For Disclosure was sent via facsimile upon the following counsel of record on March , 2011.

Armando Mirnada


EXHIBIT D

FERNANDO ROSALES AND INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A LOST SOCIETY

PLAINTIFF,

V.

AVI S. ADELMAN, BARKINGDOGS.ORG, AND DALLAS CREATIVE, INC

DEFENDANTS,

§ §

§ § § § § § § §


IN THE COUNTY COURT

AT LAW NUMBER 5

DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION


COMES NOW, Fernando Rosales (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), and pursuant to

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193 and 196 responds to Third Party Defendant's Request for

Production of Documents pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure.


LAW OFFICE OF ARMANDO MIRANDA 11333 North Central Expressway, Ste 213 Dallas, Texas 75243 214-779-6068 Telephone 214-363-5701 Telecopier By:

Armando Miranda

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs' Responses

to Defendants' First Request for Production was sent via facsimile upon the following counsel of record on March ,2011.

Armando Miranda

Plaintiff's Responses To Defendant's First Request for Production Page 1 of 19



I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff is continuing his investigation and reserves the right to rely on any facts,

documents, or other evidence that might come to his attention at a later time. Plaintiffs

responses to these requests are based on information known at this time, and Plaintiff sets

forth these responses without prejudice to his right to supplement these responses or assert

additional objections should she discover additional information or grounds for objection.

Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses any time

before the trial is conducted.

Any response herein that Plaintiff will produce documents should not be taken as

representations that such documents exist, but rather as undertakings to locate and produce

relevant, non-privileged documents, if they exist and can be found through a reasonable

search, without undue burden, in the files maintained in the ordinary course of business, if

any, that are likely to contain the requested information. By producing documents. Plaintiff

does not waive his right to contest the admissibility, relevancy, or responsiveness of such

documents to Third Party Defendant's requests.

As to the document requests to which Plaintiff does not fully object, Plaintiff will provide

the requested documents, to the extent such documents exist and are in his possession, for

inspection and copying at Plaintiffs counsel's offices at a mutually convenient date and time

to be established by counsel for the parties, and to the extent Third Party Defendant desires

copies of any of the documents. Third Party Defendant will do so upon the payment of

copying costs by Third Party Defendant. As to the document requests to which Plaintiff

objects, Plaintiff is willing to discuss each such request with Third Party Defendant's counsel

to determine whether any or all of the objections can be satisfied or the request can be

clarified or narrowed.

11.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff asserts the following Preliminary Objections to each of Third Party Defendant3s

requests as if set forth below in full in response to each request:

Plaintiffs Responses To Defendant's First Request for Production Page 2 of 19

1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests to the extent that they seek documents

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other applicable

privileges, immunities, or doctrines under state and federal law.

2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests to the extent that they are vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, and do not describe the item or category of documents requested

with reasonable particularity.

3. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests to the extent that they seek documents that

are not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

4. Plaintiff objects to Defendant5s requests to the extent that they are overly broad and

would result in discovery that is unduly burdensome, expensive, cumulative, duplicative, and

unnecessary.

5. Plaintiff generally objects to Defendant's requests to the extent they request Plaintiff

to generate or create any documents not now in existence. A party is not required to create

any documents in order to respond to a request for production. Plaintiff further objects to

each request for production to the extent each request seeks documents that are not within

the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff objects to producing documents that contain trade secrets or other

confidential research, development, proprietary or commercial information. Plaintiff will

produce such documents only in accordance with appropriate protections for the

confidentiahty of such documents.

7. Plaintiff objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents that have

already been produced to Defendant, or documents that are equally available to Plaintiff and

Defendant, including but not limited to documents that are publicly available, because such

requests impose undue burden and expense.

8. The foregoing objections shall apply to each individual request as if fully set forth at

length below such request. Subject to the foregoing objections, copies of all non-privileged

documents and/or tangible items, if any, that are being produced pursuant to Defendant's

Request for Production will be made available for inspection and/or copying at the offices of

Plaintiffs counsel upon the giving of reasonable notice by Defendant's counsel.


III.

SPECIFIC OBTECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in this case that you claim are false and/or not substantially true. Your production should include, but is not limited to documents, correspondence, and communication relating to the June 3, 2010; June 6, 2010; June 10, 2010; June 23, 2010; June 28, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010 September 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.

Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is overly broad, global, and

harassing; and is cumulative and/or duplicates information already in the possession of the

Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers Defendant to all articles

written by him, compiled by him, and/or authored by him, more specifically Defendant's articles

relating to, mentioning and concerning Plaintiffs on his website site barkingdogs.org. Plaintiff

further states none. Plaintiff will supplement this response when and if necessary.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all Documents mentioning, discussing, or

referencing: (a) this lawsuit; (b) the claims alleged by you in this lawsuit; (c) the articles that are at

issue in this lawsuit; and/or (d) the statements at issue in this lawsuit.

Response: Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is overly broad, global and

harassing,

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff further states none in so far as

response to sub-request (a) and (b) of this request. In response to sub-request (c) and (d),

Plaintiff refers Defendant to all articles written by him, compiled by him and/or authored by him,

more specifically Defendant's articles relating to, mentioning and concerning Plaintiffs on his

website site barkingdogs.org. Plaintiff further states none. Plaintiff will supplement this response

when and if necessary.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog articles. This request includes but is not limited to any documents relating to the June 3,2010; June 6, 2010; June 10, 2010; June 23, 2010; June 28, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010;


http://barkingdogs.org


Sept. 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is overly broad, global, and harassing; and is

cumulative and/or duplicates information already in the possession of the Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers Defendant to all articles

written by him, compiled by him, and/or authored by him, more specifically Defendant's articles

relating to, mentioning and concerning Plaintiffs on his website site barkingdogs.org. Plaintiff

further states none. Plaintiff will supplement this response when and if necessary.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all Documents and correspondence between you and Mr. Adelman.

Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request; Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all Documents in your possession, custody, or control relating to, referring to or mentioning Mr. Adelman or BarkingDogs.org.

Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request; Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, expensive in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is overly broad, global and harassing; and

Plaintiff further objects to the foregoing request on the grounds that said request all-inclusive and is not

limited as to any specific time-frame; as such, said request may be interpreted as seeking discovery of

matters protected under the attorney-client privilege and/or matters which constitute the work product,

materials prepared, mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, thought processes, trial strategies, and/or

legal theories of this Plaintiffs attorneys and which were developed in anticipation of litigation and/or for

trial. Comment 2 to Rule 193, Tex.RCiv.P., Rule 503, Tex.R.Civ.E., Rules 192.5(a) and 192.5(b)(1),

Tex.RCiv.P.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request; Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention you.


Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it is overly broad, global and harassing;

and Plaintiff further objects to the foregoing request on the grounds that said request all-inclusive and is

not limited as to any specific time-frame; as such, said request may be interpreted as seeking discovery of





Tex.RCiv.P.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of pubhshed materials that in any way mentions Mr. Nwatu.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, expensive, overly broad, global, and harassing in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff further objects to this request for information of a non-party to this cause of action, not in his control. Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it is not limited in scope and it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request; Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all Documents relating to, showing, and/or demonstrating any damages alleged by you in this lawsuit, including all actual, general, presumed, special, exemplary, and/or other form of damages claimed by you in this lawsuit.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that that such request, as worded, seeks to invade

the mental impressions and trial strategies of counsel for Plaintiff, which is protected from

disclosure by work-product.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Plaintiff will supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce your most current resume and/or curriculum vitae.


Plaintiff states none. Plaintiff will supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce all Documents demonstrating any emotional and/or mental distress allegedly suffered by you as a result of the statements at issue.

After a diligent search, Plaintiff does not have any documents responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all Documents relating to, containing, discussing, or mentioning any psychological evaluation and/or psychiatric evaluation of you.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all Documents relating to any psychological, psychiatric, or mental health treatment you have received, including diagnoses, treatment plans, and prescriptions.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all income and revenue earned by you since 2007. These documents will include your tax returns since 2007.

Plaintiff will supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all companies, partnerships, and/or other businesses in which you have served as an officer or director.




matters proteaed under the attorney-client privilege and/or matters which constitute the work product,



trial. Comment 2 to Rule 193, Tex.RCiv.P., Rule 503, Tex.RCiv.E., Rules 192.5(a) and 192.5(b)(1),

Tex.RCiv.P.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all Documents relating to the creation of Initiative Partners and the estabhshment of Lost Society bar in Dallas, Texas.


Plaintiff will supplement.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all Documents sufficient to show all lawsuits, arbitrations, judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings to which you have been a party.




matters proteaed under the attorney-client privilege and/or matters which constitute the work produa,




Tex.RCiv.P.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce all Documents relating to Lost Society's license to serve alcohol in the City of Dallas and State of Texas during the following years: (a) 2008, (b) 2009, (c) 2010, and (d) 2011. This includes all Documents regarding licenses or permits to serve alcohol that have been granted, refused, suspended, and/or revoked by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission during any of those years.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, expensive, and harassing in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection(s). Plaintiff states he will supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all Documents relating to any and all licensing proceedings by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission against you or your establishment, Lost Society.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it attempts to require Plaintiff to marshal all of his evidence

Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, expensive, and harassing in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Plaintiff states that after a diligent search Plaintiff does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Nwatu's current or former co-ownership of Lost Society and/or Mr. Nwatu's partnership in Initiative Partners. This request will include any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest that Mr. Nwatu has or has had in Lost Society, Initiative Partners, and/or both entities. This request will include documents relating to any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest by Mr., Nwatu in any predecessors-in-interest or successors-in—interest of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners.









Tex.RCiv.P.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Nwatll 's United States citizenship status for the years 2006 to 2011. This request will include documents communication, and correspondence from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.



and Plaintiff further objeas to the foregoing request on the grounds that said request all-inclusive and is






Tex.RCiv.P.


Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it seeks information that is not related

to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce all Documents relating to Mr. Rosales's current or former co-ownership of Lost Society and/or partnership in Initiative Partners. This request will include any current or former ownership, co-ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest that Mr. Rosales has or has had in Lost Society, Initiative Partners, and/or both entities, This request will include documents relating to any current or former ownership, co—ownership, partnership interest, investment interest, and/or any other economic interest by Mr. Rosales in any predecessors-in-interest or successors-in- interest of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners.

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome and harassing in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objection(s), Plaintiff states that he will supplement this response.

SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UNDERLYING TRANSACTIONS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Produce all Documents sufficient to show your knowledge of Mr. Adelman's weblog postings. This request includes Documents relating to your access of the BarkingDogs.org website. Your production should include, but is not limited to documents, communications, and correspondence relating to your knowledge of and access to the June 3, 2010; June 6, 2010; June 10, 2010; June 23, 2010; June 28, 2010; June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010; Sept. 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and/or December 4, 2010 weblog articles referenced in your Amended Petition.


Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome in contravention of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.



not limited as to any specific time-frame; as such, said request may be interpreted as seeking discover/ of

matters proteaed under the attorney-client privilege and/or matters which constitute the work produa,






Tex.RCiv.P.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all Documents relating to "business dealings" Mr. Rosales and/or Initiative Partners had in place at the time of the challenged weblog articles referred to in paragraph 23 of your Amended Petition.


Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, overly broad, global, and harassing; and Plaintiff further objects to the foregoing request on the grounds that said request all-inclusive and is not limited as to any specific time frame.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Produce all Documents relating to, showing, and/or demonstrating any lost business opportunities you allege are a result of caused by, mid/or attributable to Defendants' publication(s).


Plaintiff further objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, overly broad, global, and harassing; and Plaintiff further objects to the foregoing request on the grounds that said request all-inclusive and is not limited as to any specific time frame.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged copyright infringement you contend Defendants' committed on Paragraph 18 of your Amended Complaint. This request includes, but is not limited to documentation, correspondence, and/or communications relating to the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 of your Amended Petition.



Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, overly broad, global, and harassing.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged copyright held by Plaintiffs. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged trademark law violation you allege Defendants committed in paragraph 16 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to documents relating to the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 of your Amended Petition.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Produce all Doaiments relating to any alleged trademark held by Plaintiffs during the time of the challenged June 6, 2010 weblog article referenced in paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to, documentation from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.




Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents relating to Plaintiffs reputation in the community during the time period of the challenged weblog articles. This request includes, but is not limited to documents, correspondence, and communication evidencing (a) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Lost Society and/or Initiative Partners; (b) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Mr. Rosales; or (c) Dallas residents' and/or Greenville Avenue area residents' opinions of Mr. Nwatu. This request includes documents, correspondence, or communication from the following time periods: (a) from Lost Society's opening to June 3, 2010—the date of the first challenged weblog article; (b) between June 3, 2010 and December 4, 2010—the date span from the first challenged weblog article to the last challenged article; and (c) during any other relevant time period in which Lost Society's reputation was formed, established, and/or injured by any party or parties, including parties not named in this lawsuit.



Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all Documents relating to Plaintiffs' knowledge of an alleged call by Mr. Adelman to the Dallas Sheriffs Office on June 10, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 20 and 21 of your Amended Petition.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all Documents relating to alleged injury to Plaintiffs' reputation allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged June 10, 2010 call.





REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Produce all Documents relating to the Plaintiffs' knowledge of and access to the challenged weblog article on lime 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your Amended Petition.







Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Produce all Documents relating to the Defendants' alleged knowledge of falsity of statements allegedly made in the challenged weblog article on, June 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your Amended Petition.









REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all Documents relating to any alleged infringement of a copyright allegedly held by Mr. Rosales in an alleged photograph. The alleged photograph is referenced in paragraphs 26 and 27 of your Amended Petition. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation, correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of June 28, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of June 28, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30.





REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of June 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.



Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states he does not have anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response. Plaintiff further states that no such "don't get customers killed" clause exists in any pending lease.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of June 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.





REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38.





REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Oa . 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.





REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Produce all Documents reflecting the statements at issue in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47 that you claim are false and/or not substantially true.




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of any alleged false statement and/or false impression contained in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47.





EXHIBIT E

CAUSE NO. CC 10 08658 E



V. § §

AVI S. ADELMAN, § BARKINGDOGS.ORG, AND DALLAS § CREATIVE, INC §


PLAESTTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS


COME NOW Plaintiffs, Fernando Rosales and Initiative Partners, LLC D/B/A Lost Society

(hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), and responds to the Requests for Admissions propounded by

Defendants pursuant to Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.



By:. Armando Miranda

Plaintiffs' Responses To Defendant's First Request for Admissions Page 1 of 3




I hereby certify that a true and correa copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendant's First Request for Admissions was sent via facsimile upon the following counsel of record on March , 2011.

Armando Mirnada

RESPONSES

1. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly-broad and it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states Admit.

2. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly-broad and it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states Admit.

3. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly-broad and it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states Admit

4. Denied 5. Admit 6. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that he can not admit and/or deny said

request. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states denied 7. Deny 8. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its

present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission, Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states denied.

9. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Plaintifff further objects to this request on the grounds it requests information of a third party and forces Plaintiff to speculate. Subject to and without waving the same Plaintiff states denied.

10. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Plaintifff further objects to this request on the grounds it requests information of a third part)' and forces Plaintiff to speculate. Subject to and without waving the same Plaintiff states denied.


11. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Plaintifff further objects to this request on the grounds it requests information of a third party and forces Plaintiff to speculate. Subject to and without waving the same Plaintiff states denied.

12. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states denied.

13. Admit 14. Admit 15. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its

present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states denied.

16. Plaintiff objects to this admission on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, and in its present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states denied.


EXHIBIT F




V. § §

AVI S. ADELMAN, § BARKINGDOGS.ORG, AND § DALLAS CREATIVE, INC §


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES


NOW COME, Fernando Rosales and Initiative Partners, LLC D/B/A Lost Society,

Plaintiffs in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and in response to Defendants' First

Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs Fernando Rosales and Initiative Partners, LLC D/B/A

Lost Society, propounded to them pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, makes these, their answers and objections thereto, in writing, under oath, and

for same would respectfully show as follows:

Plaintiff's Responses To Defendant's First Set Of Interrogatories Page 1 of 8





By:. Armando Miranda


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories was sent via facsimile upon the following counsel of record on March , 2011.

Armando Mirnada

Plaintiffs Responses To Defendant's First Set Of Interrogatories Page 2 of 8

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons with knowledge of any facts relevant to this lawsuit. Briefly state (2-3 sentences) the substance of each person's knowledge.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information that is cumulative of the information required to be produced in responses to Defendant's Requests for Disclosure. Subjert to and without waiving the same Plaintiff refers Defendant's to Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant's Request for Disclosure. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify with specificity the statements by the Defendants that you are challenging in this lawsuit. Your response should include, but not be limited to, the publication(s) in which each such statement appears, the applicable page number, and the precise words of each such statement (in quotations).

RESPONSE: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs Amended Petition filed on or about December 10, 2010.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For all statements identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify all persons with knowledge of facts that you believe support your contention that such statements are false and defamatory.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information that is cumulative of the information required to be produced in responses to Defendanf s Requests for Disclosure. Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff refers Defendant's to Plaintiffs' responses to Defendanf s Request for Disclosure. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention you since 2008. Your answer should include any such references on any internet website and/or weblog.

RESPONSES: Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope, subject to said objection and without waiving the same, Plaintiff states that he can not recollect "all" articles that mention him since 2008. Plaintiff further states that he identifies all articles, broadcasts, reports, publications, and/or other type of published materials as such authored, penned and/or otherwise written by the Defendant in his website barldngdogs.org and outlined in Plaintiffs pleadings.


http://barldngdogs.org

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify (by style, cause number, tiling date, court, alleged causes of action, attorneys involved, status, and outcome) every lawsuit, bankruptcy, judicial proceeding (civil or criminal), arbitration, and/or administrative proceeding to which you have been a party.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, global, burdensome and harassing in contradiction of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff further objects to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in time or scope, and it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objection and without waiving the same, Plaintiff states that he has been party to the following lawsuits, bankruptcies, judicial proceedings (civil or criminal), arbitrations, and/or administrative proceedings:

CC-09-07139-B EVELYN RODRIGUEZ vs. BRIGHTMAN 09/21/2009 OHIAGU NWATU, LOST SOCIETY, County Court at Law No. 2

CC-10-04909-D INITIATIVE PARTNERS LLC, DOING 07/21/2010 BUSINESS AS LOST SOCIETY vs. County Court at Law No. 4 WONDERFUL SEVEN LP

Plaintiff reserves his right to supplement this response.

Subject there, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his response, when and if necessary.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify (by style, cause number, filing date, court, alleged causes of action, attorneys involved, status, and outcome) every lawsuit, bankruptcy, judicial proceeding, arbitration, and/or administrative proceeding to which Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society have been a party.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope and/or time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discover)' of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, global, burdensome and harassing in contradiction of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.


Subject there, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that he has been party to the following lawsuits, bankruptcies, judicial proceedings (civil or criminal), arbitrations, and/or administrative proceedings:

CC-09-07139-B EVELYN RODRIGUEZ vs. BRIGHTMAN 09/21/2009 OHIAGU NWATU, LOST SOCIETY, County Court at Law No. 2

CC-10-04909-D INITIATIVE PARTNERS LLC, DOING 07/21/2010 BUSINESS AS LOST SOCIETY vs. County Court at Law No. 4 WONDERFUL SEVEN LP

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his response, when and if necessary.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all criminal proceedings in which you have been involved. Your response should include, but not be limited to, all arrests, traffic tickets, indictments, criminal information or other charges, pleas, and trials.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope and/or time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.



INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify all government investigations in which Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society have been involved. Your response should include, but not be limited to, investigations by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County Sheriff s Office, City of Dallas, and any other national, state, or local government agency.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope and/or time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery' of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, global, burdensome and harassing in contradiction of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as nothing more than a "fishing expedition"



INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify any crimes or alleged crimes that have taken place on the premises owned by Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society. Your answer should identify the viaims and perpetrators, any law enforcement agency involved, and the result of any criminal proceedings.


Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is overly broad, global, burdensome and harassing in contradiction of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as nothing more than a "fishing expedition"

Subject there, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that an investigation of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission was concluded and does not know of any other investigation initiated, supervised, opened and/or closed by the Dallas Police Department, Dallas County Sheriff s Office, City of Dallas, and any other national, state, or local government agency Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his response, when and if necessary.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all persons (other than your attorneys) with whom you have discussed this lawsuit and/or the allegations in this lawsuit.

BiiSPONSE: Plaintiffs object to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope and/or time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it attempts to require Plaintiff to marshal all of his evidence.

Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information that is cumulative of the information required to be produced in responses to Defendant's Requests for Disclosure. Subjea to and without waiving the same Plaintiff refers Defendant's to


Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant's Request for Disclosure. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State fully, completely, and in detail by category, each and every item of actual, general, presumed, special, exemplary, and/or other damages that you claim against any of the defendants in this lawsuit, the dollar amount of each item of damage, and a detailed description of how you calculated the dollar amount of such damages. Your description should include each element of damage or component of recovery that you seek, the amount sought for each element or component, the manner in which each element or component of the calculation was determined, and the source of each number used in the calculation.

RESPONSES: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it attempts to require Plaintiff to marshal all of his evidence.

Plaintiff further objeas to this interagary on the grounds it asks for a "in detail" narrative answer more sutitale in a depsotion. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objection(s), Plaintiff states that he has lost over $50,000.00 in revenue. Plaintiff acknowledges that the jury is the ultimate trier of the fact with regard to the damages and Plaintiff places his full trust in the decision of the jury. The amount is merely a response to the Defendant's demand and Plaintiff reserves his right to request a different amount from the jury at the time of trial

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all business and/or economic opportunities that you contend were lost as a result of the publication of the statements at issue in this lawsuit. Your answer should include the "business dealings" Mr. Rosales and/or Initiative Partners had in place at the time of the challenged weblog articles referred to in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition.

RESPONSES: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in time and scope, Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objection(s), Plaintiff states that he has been unable to succefully sell "Lost Society" due in part to the negativity spread by Defendant in his articles written in his website, barkingdogs.org. Plaintiff will supplemtn this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Itemize, by dollar amount, your income for each year since 2007 and your expected income for 2011.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information already requested in Defendant's First Request for Production. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection(s), Plaintiff states over $50,000.00. Plaintiff is awaiting his tax professional for more specific information. Plaintiff will supplement his answer.



INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Itemize, by dollar amount, Initiative Partners' and/or Lost Society's income for each year since 2008 and its expected income for 2011.

BJiSPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information already requested in Defendant's First Request for Production. Subjert to and without waiving the foregoing objection(s), Plaintiff states over $50,000.00. Plaintiff is awaiting his tax professional for more specific information. Plaintiff will supplement his answer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify (by name, address, type of professional, and approximate time frame you saw them) all physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors, social workers, and any other medical, physical, or mental health related professionals who have evaluated, interviewed, diagnosed, tested, assessed, treated, or counseled you since 2007.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory for the reason that it is not limited in scope. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, subject to said objection and without waiving the same, Plaintiff states that he has not been have evaluated, interviewed, diagnosed, tested, assessed, treated, or consulted with any physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors, social workers, and any other medical, physical, or mental health related professionals since 2007.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify any persons or businesses with which you have discussed the sale of Initiative Partners and/or Lost Society, or to which you have sold Initiative partners and/or Lost Society.



Subject to and without waiving the same Plaintiff states that he has not yet sold Lost Society and no immediate sale negotiations are active. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.


Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Responses

Documents

Transcript of Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Responses