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 § VA ^
LOST SOCIETY, §
<£.
e %
§ V.
% • ' %^^ -
Plaintiffs § s*
'\ %
NO. 5 ^ . -^
^
\ ^ ^
§ \ "^
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 Page 1

PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND FOR COSTS AND FEES
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, 2011 2 : (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.
DEFENDANTS' M O T I O N TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 2

PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND FOR COSTS AND F E E S
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).
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, T O COMPEL Page 6

PLAINTIFFS T O RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND FOR COSTS AND F E E S
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.
Lisa R. Helem
Tyler J. Bexley
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
CAUSE NO. CC-10-08658-E
FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

INITIATIVE PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A §
LOST SOCIETY, §
§
Plaintiffs §
§
v. § NO. 5
§
§
§
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
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.

publications, and/or other type of published materials that in any way mention you.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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
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.
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.
copyright held by Plaintiffs. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation,
correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

challenged weblog article of June 28,2010 referenced in paragraphs 28,29 and 30.
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.
challenged weblog article of June 30,2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32.
issue in the challenged weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35
challenged weblog article of July 2,2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35.
issue in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38
challenged weblog article of Sept. 11,2010 referenced in paragraphs 36,37, and 38.
issue in the challenged weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39 that you claim
are false and/or not substantially true.
challenged weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39.
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.
challenged weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40,41, 42, 43, and 44.
issue in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47

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.

FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page n
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

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
Lisa R. Helem
Tyler J. Bexley
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
§
§
§
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:
• n m 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

EXHIBIT B-l
Page 1 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 <TBexley@velaw.com> 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^ncia'c
Vinson S Elkins LLP
1 'dnrnel G-C" Ce-'ci
-"001 Ros^Avciiuo Sjite 3700
L)dL>, TX 75 "'CI-29?5
Tel+1.214.220 7771
Fa* +1.214 999 7740
t r o x l f v ffv; aw o r "
4/15/2011
Page 2 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 d i ) 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

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.

11333 North Central Expressway, Ste 213
Dallas, Texas 75243
214-779-6068 Telephone
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
LOST SOCIETY
PLAINTIFF, §
§ AT LAW NUMBER 5
V. §
§
AVI S. ADELMAN, §
CREATIVE, INC §
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
attorney of record, Thomas S. Leatherbury, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Ste
3700, Dallas, Texas 75201
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.

Dallas, Texas 75243
By:
Armando Miranda
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
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;

Sept. 11, 2010; October 21, 2010; October 30, 2010; and December 4, 2010 weblog articles
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 N O . 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
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.
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.

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
evidence
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.
evidence
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.
anything responsive to this request. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.
demonstrating any lost business opportunities you allege are a result of caused by, mid/or
attributable to Defendants' publication(s).
evidence
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.
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.
evidence

Plaintiff objects to this request for the reason that it is burdensome, overly broad, global, and
harassing.
copyright held by Plaintiffs. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documentation
correspondence, and/or communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.

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.
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.

knowledge of and access to the challenged weblog article on lime 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs
evidence
harassing.
knowledge of and access to the challenged weblog article on June 23, 2010 referenced in paragraphs
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.

knowledge of and access to the challenged weblog article on June 25, 2010 referenced in paragraphs
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.
issue in the challenged weblog article of June 28, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 that
evidence
harassing.
weblog article of June 28, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30.

evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.
Plaintiff further states that no such "don't get customers killed" clause exists in any pending lease.
weblog article of June 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 31 and 32.
evidence
harassing.
issue in the challenged weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 that
evidence
harassing.

weblog article of July 2, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35.
evidence
harassing.
issue in the challenged weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38 that
evidence
harassing.
weblog article of Sept. 11, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 36, 37, and 38.
evidence
harassing.

issue in the challenged weblog article of O a . 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39 that you claim
are false and/or not substantially true.
evidence
harassing.
weblog article of Oct. 21, 2010 referenced in paragraph 39.
evidence
harassing.
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.
evidence
harassing.
weblog article of Oct. 30, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.
evidence

harassing.
issue in the challenged weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47 that
evidence
harassing.
weblog article of Dec. 4, 2010 referenced in paragraphs 45, 46, and 47.
evidence
harassing.

EXHIBIT E
CAUSE NO. CC 10 08658 E

LOST SOCIETY
PLAINTIFF, §
§ AT LAW NUMBER 5
V. §
§
AVI S. ADELMAN, §
CREATIVE, INC §
PLAESTTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR

ADMISSIONS
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 responds to the Requests for Admissions propounded by
Defendants pursuant to Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dallas, Texas 75243
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.
waiving the same Plaintiff states Admit.
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.
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.
objects to this request on the grounds it requests information of a third part)' and
denied.

objects to this request on the grounds it requests information of a third party and
denied.
present form Plaintiff can not admit and/or deny this admission. Subject to and
13. Admit
14. Admit

EXHIBIT F

LOST SOCIETY
PLAINTIFF, §
§ AT LAW NUMBER 5
V. §
§
AVI S. ADELMAN, §
BARKINGDOGS.ORG, AND §
DALLAS CREATIVE, INC §
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES
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
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


Dallas, Texas 75243
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.

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.
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.
calculated to lead to the discovery' of admissible evidence.
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.
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
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

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Defendants Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Responses

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CAUSE NO.

FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AJ LAW

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 1

costs and attorneys' fees incurred in preparing this Motion.

II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES SHOULD BE STRICKEN.

DEFENDANTS' M O T I O N TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 2

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

B. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS'

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

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 3

days of the date of its order.

1. Plaintiffs should be compelled to respond properly and fully to Defendants'

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

the date of its order.

2. The Court should overrule Plaintiffs' untimely objections and compel

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

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 4

C. DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE

App.—Dallas 1986, no writ).

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 5

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.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, T O COMPEL Page 6

and presenting of this Motion; and

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

VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.

Attorneys for Defendants Avi S. Adelman,

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 7

Attorney for Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES, TO COMPEL Page 8

FERNANDO ROSALES AND § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION.

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

12. "Communication" means any contact whatsoever or any transmission or exchange of

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents relating to Defendants'

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all articles, broadcasts, reports,

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UNDERLYING TRANSACTIONS

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION