05 10 1499 CV

05-10-1499-CV | DEFENDANTS
I EXHU3IT
5th Court of Appeals

FILED: 02/16/2011
Lisa Matz, Clerk
ROBERT H. RENNEKER
Attorney and Counselor
1412 Main Street, Suite 210
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
Telecopier: (214)742-7110
E-Mail: renneker@verizon.net
TO: Donovan Campbell, Jr./J. Patrick Bredehoft
NUMBER: (214) 630-9996
DATE: July 29,2009
FROM: Robert H. Renneker
RE: No. 08-11922-F; Nancy B. Hamon, by and through her Agent and Attorney-
in-Fact, John L. Roach vs. R. Michael Lagow and Brenda Lagow
DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: Defendants' First Amended Response to

Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure
MESSAGE:
TOTAL PAGES (Including This Page): 6
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message is intendedonly forthe use ofthe individual orentity

to which it is addressed. This message contains information from the law firm of Robert H. Renneker
which may be privileged, confidential, and exempt fromdisclosureunder applicable law. Ifthe reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately at our telephone number (214) 742-7100. We
will be happy to arrange for the return of this message to us, via theUnited States Postal Service, at
no cost to you.
NO. 08-11922-F
NANCY B. HAMON, by and through IN THE DISTRICT COURT

her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L.
Roach,
Plaintiff,
VS. 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA

S. LAGOW,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO: PlaintinffNancy Hamon, by and throughher attorney of record, Mr. Donovan Campbell,
Jr., Rader & Campbell, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207
R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA S. LAGOW, make this their Defendants' Response
to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure and would show the following:
1. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit.
The names of the parties are correctly stated.
2. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties.
Defendants are unaware of any potential parties at this time.
3. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims
and defenses.
Defendants have denied generally the allegations raised in Plaintiffs lawsuit. Defendant
Brenda Lagow has also raised an affirmative defense that any notes that were executed by her were
withoutconsiderationbecause shewasnotpersonallyliableon the originalnote executedbyMichael
Lagow. By requiring Brenda Lagow to assume the obligation owed by her husband as his separate
debt, Plaintiff has charged Brenda Lagow interest in excess of the amount allowed by law. As a
result, Plaintiff has forfeited the principal amount of the "loan" to Brenda Lagow, forfeited the
interest charged, and is liable to Brenda Lagow for three times the amount of unlawful interest
charged, together with attorneys' fees.
DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE - Page 1
The amount and any method of calculating economic damages.
Defendants arenot seeking economic damages at thepresent time.
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.
Nancy Hamon
% Donovan Campbell, Jr.
Rader & Campbell
2777 Stemmons Freeway
Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Ms. Hamon is the Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
JohnL. Roach
Rader & Campbell
Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Ms. Roach purports to act as the attorney-in-fact for the Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
R. Michael Lagow
Brenda S. Lagow
6627 Velasco
Dallas, Texas 75214
(214) 828-0703
The Lagows are the Defendants in this lawsuit.
6. 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 opinions 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;
(4) 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.
Robert H. Renneker
The Adolphus Tower
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
Robert H. Renneker is Defendants' counsel and may be called to render an opinion

concerning the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Renneker's
testimony, if any, will be based on the number of hours and servicesrendered on behalfof a party
and the factorsgenerallyconsidered in detennining a reasonable fee, namely the elementsset out in
Section 1.04(b)the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including time and labor
required to renderthe services a client'sbehalf,the novelty and difficultyofthequestionspresented,
the skill requisite to perform the services properly; the preclusion of other employment; the fee
customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; the amount involved and the results
obtained; the time limitationsimposed by the client or the circumstances; the nature and lengthof
the professional relationship with the client;the experience, reputation, and abilityofthe lawyer or
lawyersperforming the services; and whetherthe fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or
uncertainty ofcollection before the legal services have been rendered.
RobertH. Renneker is a 1978 graduate ofthe University ofTexas School ofLaw. Between
1978 and 1980 he servedas a briefingattorney for the Court ofCivil Appealsfor the SixthSupreme
Judicial District of Texas. Renneker has been actively engaged in the practice of law in Dallas
County, Texas (and throughout the State of Texas) since 1980 and is rated "av" by Martindale
Hubbell. Renneker is admitted to practice before all the courts in the State of Texas, the United
States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Southern,and Western Districts ofTexas, the Fifth
and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
7. Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements.
None.
8. Any discoverable settlement agreements.
None.
9. Any discoverable witness statements.
None.
DEFENDANTS'FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

10. In asuit alleging physical or mental injury anddamages from the occurrence thatisthe
subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the
injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the
disclosure of such medical records and bills.
Not applicable.
11. In a suit allegingphysical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that isthe
subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by
virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party.
Not applicable.
12. The name, address, and telephonenumber of any personwho may be designated as a
responsible third party.
Defendant is unaware of any responsible third party at the present time.
illy submitted,
Robei Renneker
Texas No. 16778800
1412 Main Street

Suite 210
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
(214) 742-7110 (telecopier)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS' ETRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

PLAINTEXT'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE - Page 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Atrue and correct copy ofthe foregoing Defendants' First Amended Response toPlaintiffs
Request for Disclosure was served on the attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr. Donovan Campbell, Jr.,
Rader &Campbell, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite^Lia^Dallas, Texas 75207, by^telecopy and
regular mail on this the 29th day of July, 2009.

JUL-29-2009IWED) 14:44 (FAX)214 742 7110 P. 001
Transaction Report
Send
Transaction(s) completed
No. TX Date/Tine Destination Durat ion P. J Result Mode
366 JUL-29 14:43 2146309996 0-00"33" 006 OK N ECM
ROBERT H. RENNEKER
attorney and counselor
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 742-7100
Telecopier (214)742-7110
TO: Donovan Campbell, JrVJ. Patrick Bredehoft
NUMBER: (214) 630-9996
DATE: July 29,2009
RE: No. 08-11922-F; Nancy B.Hamon, byand through herAgent and Attorney-
in-Fact, John L. Roach vs. R. Michael Lagow andBrenda Lagow
DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: Defendants' First Amended Response to

Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure
MESSAGE:
TOTAL PAGES (IncludingThis Page): 6

06/23/2089 12:57 2146309996 RADERCAMPBELL PAGE 01
BREDEHOFT & ASSOCIATES

2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Telephone (214) 819-8085
Telecopier (2.14) 630-9996
TFT .rcmpv COVER SHEET
DATE: June 23,2009
TO: Robert H. Renneker, Esq. TELECOPY NO.: (214) 742-7110
FROM: Patrick Bredehoft
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
******************************************************************************
IMPORTANT This message isintended only for the use ofthe individual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain information that isprivileged,
confidential,andexempt fiwn disclosure raider applicable law. Ifthe reader ofthis message is not the Intended recipient, orthe employeeor8{^rcsponsMefor
delivering this messageto theintended recipient, you Are herebynotifiedthat anycSssenrimtien.distribution, oreopyingofthis eonwioitlealionisstrictly prohibited.
Ifyoureceivethiscommunicntion inerror, please notifyus immediatelybytelephone and returnthe original messageto US rtthe aboveaddress v)ntheUnited States
Postal Service. Thank you.
***************************************************************************
REMARKS:
Bredehoft & Associates

Attorneys at Law
. •-
2777 N. StemmonB Freeway, Ste. 1125

Pallas, Texas 75207
iobl (Sairmailnet
Ftosfmile (2M) 63W.W»

Telephone (2U)8W-8095
June 23,2009
GaryFitesimmons . VIA HAND DELIVERY

DallasCountyDistrictClerk
600 CommerceStreet, Ste. 103
Dallas, Texas 75202
Re: Nancy B. Hamon v. R. Michael Lagow el ux.\ Cause No. 08-11922-F, in the 116*
District Court ofDallas County, Texas; Supplement to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Production from Defendants
Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons:
Enclosed are an original and two (2) copies ofSupplement to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Production from Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Please file the original of this
Supplement among the papers in this case and return two file-stamped copies to me via the person
delivering same.
As always, thank you for your assistance inthis matter.

Sincerely yoj
stn/enclosures
cc: RobertH. Renneker, Esq. (w/encl.) VIA TELECOPY and

VIA CM # 70021000 0004 8879 9384
DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT
Robert H. Renneker ••* cy—

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR
THE ADOLPHUS TOWER

1412 MAIN STREET, SUITE 210
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202
(214) 742-7100
TELECOPY: (214)742-7110
E-MAIL: renneker@verizon.net
September 4,2009
VIA TELECOPYAND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Donovan Campbell, Jr.

Rader & Campbell
Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Mr. J. Patrick Bredehoft

Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Re: No. 08-11922-F; Nancy B. Hamon, by and through her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact,
John L. Roach vs. R. Michael Lagow and Brenda Lagow
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find (1) Defendants' First Supplemental Answer; (2) the Original
Counterclaim of Defendant Brenda S. Lagow; and (3) Defendants' Second Amended Response to
Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure.
Thank you for your attention in this matter
enclosures
NO. 08-11922-F _ /' ;"-
0$ 0^ ' • •:. / ;
NANCY B. HAMON, by and through § IN THE DISTRICT COURT ^ ja,y
her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L. § ".';/r c•. '' <?;;4/
Plaintiff, § '-'•••V^Mf-
§ - "5*5
VS. § H6TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT '%>
§
§
R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA §
S. LAGOW, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY,TEXAS
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT BRENDA S. LAGOW
BRENDA S. LAGOW, one ofthe Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, files
this her Original Counterclaim and in support thereofwould showthe following:
1.0 Factual Background.
1.1 On or about June 12,2002, Plaintiffadvanced the sum of$500,000 to Defendant R.
Michael Lagow, who in turn executed a promissory note payable to Plaintiff in the same amount.
The note bore interest at the rate of 6% per annum and matured on June 12, 2003. The funds
advance to R. Michael Lagow were for use in his business. Brenda S. Lagow neither executed the
note nor received any of the funds advanced by Plaintiff.
1.2 OnDecember1,2003, DefendantR. Michael Lagowexecuted a secondnote payable
to Plaintiffin the amount of$750,000. The amount ofthisnote represented a renewal and extension
of the June 12,2002 note together with an additional advance of $250,000. As with the June 12,
2002 note, Brenda S. Lagow neither executed the December 1, 2003 note nor received any funds
advanced by Plaintiff.
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM OF.

DEFENDANT BRENDA S. LAGOW - Page 1
1.3 On April 15, 2004, Defendant R. Michael Lagow executed a third note payable to
Plaintiff in the amount of$1,000,000. The amount ofthis third note represented a renewal and
extension ofthe December 1,2003 Note with anadditional advance of$250,000. As with the June
12, 2002 note and the December 1, 2003 note, Brenda S. Lagow neither executed the note nor
received any funds advanced by Plaintiff.
1.4 On November 24,2004 afourth note was executed payable toPlaintiffinthe amount
of$300,000. Upon information and beliefthis note was executed by both R. Michael Lagow and
Brenda S. Lagow.
1.5 On August 24,2006, Defendants executed a note payable to Plaintiffin theamount
of $1,300,000, which was in renewal and extension of the April 15,2004 note andtheNovember
24, 2004. Although Brenda S. Lagow was not personally liable on the April 15, 2004 note, the
renewal and extension oftheNovember 24,2004 note was apparently conditioned onheragreement
to assume responsibility for payment of the April 15,2004 note.
2.0 Liability for Usury.
2.1 At all times material hereto, the maximum amount of interest that Plaintiff could
charge Defendant Brenda S. Lagow onthe$300,000 note was 18% perannum, which, asofAugust
24,2006 was no more than $110,118.
2.2 Byrequiring Brenda S. Lagow to assume the obligation evidenced by theApril 15,
2004 note, Plaintiffcontracted for and chargedBrenda S. Lagow$889,882.70 interest in excessof
the maximum amount allowed by law.
2.3 Brenda S. Lagowis entitled to recover from Plaintiffthree times the amount ofexcess
interestcharged byPlaintiff. Because Plaintiffhas contracted forandcharged more thantwice the
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM OF
amount of lawful interest, Brenda S. Lagow is also entitled to recover from Plaintiff the sum of
$300,000, which is amount of principal ofthe November 24,2004 note.
2.4 Brenda S. Lagow has been required to retain the services of Robert H. Rennekerto
represent her in this matter andis entitled torecover her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from
Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Brenda S. Lagow praysthat aftera trial on the merits,shehave and recover
theamount prayed for in this counterclaim and that she have such further relief to which she may
be entitled.
$rt H. Renneker
Texas Bar No. 16778800
1412 Main Street

Suite 210
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 742-7100
(214) 742-7110 (telecopier)
CERTDJICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Original Counterclaim of Defendant Brenda S.
Lagowwasserved ontheattorneys forthePlaintiff, Mr. Donovan Campbell, Jr.,Rader & Campbell,
2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207, and Mr. J. Patrick Bredehpft, Bredehoft
& Associates, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207 by telecopy and regular
mail on this the 4th day of September, 2009.
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM OF
NO. 08-11922-F ~ ' '. ,0",..,
NANCY B. HAMON, by and through § IN THE DISTRICT COURT-., ^ fy

her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L. § r, ..</'•'•\ >et^l. *• ^
Roach, § -• . '<[l'4^r-[jilQ,j{
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT '':"">>
§
§
S. LAGOW, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
Defendants R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA S. LAGOW, subject to their Defendant's
First Amended Answer and the Original Counterclaim of Defendant Brenda S. Lagow and without
waivingsame, file this their Defendants' First SupplementalAnswerand in support thereof would
show the Court the following:
3.0 Affirmative Defenses.
3.1 Plaintiffhas contracted for and charged Defendant Brenda S. Lagow interest at a rate
in excess of the maximum amount allowed by law.
3.2 Because the notes forming the basis of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are
usurious, thosenotes are unenforceable or alternativelyPlaintiffmustforfeit allprincipal andinterest
charged.
3.3 To the extent that the statutory and common law penalties for charging usurious
interest do not exceed the amount claimed by Plaintiff, Defendants are entided to offset and credit
for all common law and statutory penalties as a result of Plaintiffs contracting for and collecting
usurious interest.
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER - Page 1

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by her suit and that Defendants
have such further relief to which they may be entitled.
spectftdly subrnittedf
Robert H. Renneker
1412 Main Street

Suite 210
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
(214) 742-7110 (telecopier)
Atrueand correct copy oftheforegoing Defendant's First Supplemental Answer wasserved

onthe attorneys for the Plaintiff, Mr. Donovan Campbell, Jr., Rader & Campbell, 2777 Stemmons
Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207, and Mr. J. Patrick Bredehoft, Bredehoft &Associates,
2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207by telecopy and regular mail/on this the
4th day of September, 2009.
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER - Page 2

NO. 08-11922-F
NANCY B. HAMON, by and through § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L. §
Roach, §
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
S. LAGOW, §
DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO: PlaintiffNancyHamon, byandthroughherattorney of record, Mr. DonovanCampbell, Jr.,

Rader & Campbell, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125, Dallas, Texas 75207
R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA S. LAGOW, make this their Defendants' Response
to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure and wouldshowthe following:
1. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit.
The names of the parties are correctly stated.
2. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties.
Defendants are unaware of any potential parties at this time.
3. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding parry's claims
and defenses.
Defendants have denied generally the allegations raised in Plaintiffs lawsuit. Defendant
Brenda Lagow has also raised an affirmative defense that any notes thatwere executed byherwere
withoutconsideration because she wasnot personallyliableonthe original note executedbyMichael
Lagow. By requiring BrendaLagowto assume the obligation owedby her husbandas his separate
debt, Plaintiffhas chargedBrenda Lagow interest in excess of the amovmt allowed by law. As a
result, Plaintiff has forfeited the principal amount of the "loan" to Brenda Lagow, forfeited the
interest charged, and is liable to Brenda Lagow for three times the amount of unlawful interest
charged, together with attorneys' fees.
DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO

4. The amount and any method of calculating economic damages.
BrendaS.Lagowis seeking therecoveryof$2,969,648.10. Themaximumamount ofinterest

that Plaintiffcould charge Defendant Brenda S. Lagow onthe $300,000 note from April 15,2004
through August24,2006 was no morethan$110,118. Byrequiring BrendaS. Lagowto assume the
obligation evidenced by the April 15, 2004 note, Plaintiff contracted for and charged Brenda S.
Lagow $889,882.70 interest in excess of the maximum amount allowed bylaw. Brenda S. Lagow
is entitled to recover from Plaintiff three times the amount of excessinterestcharged by Plaintiff.
Because Plaintiffhascharged morethan twice theamoimt oflawful interest, Brenda S.Lagowis also
entitledto recoverfromPlaintiff the sumof $300,000, whichis amountofprincipalofthe November
24,2004 note.
5. 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.
Nancy Hamon
Rader & Campbell
Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Ms. Hamon is the Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
JohnL. Roach
Rader & Campbell
Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Ms. Roach purports to act as the attorney-in-fact for the Plaintiffin this lawsuit.
R. Michael Lagow
Brenda S. Lagow
6627 Velasco
Dallas, Texas 75214
(214) 828-0703
The Lagows are the Defendants in this lawsuit.

6. 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 opinions 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;
(4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of
the responding party:
(A) alldocuments, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilationsthat
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.
Robert H. Renneker
The Adolphus Tower
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
Robert H. Renneker is Defendants' counsel and may be called to render an opinion

concerning the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Renneker's
testimony, if any, will be based on the number of hours and services rendered on behalf of a party
and the factors generally considered in determining a reasonable fee, namely the elements set out in
Section 1.04(b)the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including time and labor
required to render the services a client's behalf, the noveltyand difficulty ofthe questions presented,
the skill requisite to perform the services properly; the preclusion of other employment; the fee
customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; the amount involved and the results
obtained; the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; the nature and length of
the professional relationship with the client; the experience, reputation, and ability ofthe lawyeror
lawyers performing the services; and whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or
uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered.
Robert H. Renneker is a 1978 graduate ofthe University ofTexas School of Law. Between
1978 and 1980 he served as a briefing attorney for the Court ofCivil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme
Judicial District of Texas. Renneker has been actively engaged in the practice of law in Dallas
County, Texas (and throughout the State of Texas) since 1980 and is rated "av" by Martindale
Hubbell. Renneker is admitted to practice before all the courts in the State of Texas, the United
States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts ofTexas, the Fifth
and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
7. Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements.
None.

8. Any discoverable settlement agreements.
None.
9. Any discoverable witness statements.
None.
10. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the
subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the
injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the
disclosure of such medical records and bills.
Not applicable.
11. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the
subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by
virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party.
Not applicable.
12. The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a
responsible third party.
. I
Defendant is unaware of any responsible thirdparty at the presenttune. \
submitted,
RdbertH. Renneker
1412 Main Street

Suite 210
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
(214) 742-7110 (telecopier)
E-Mail: rermeker@verizon.net

PLAINITFF'S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE - Page 4
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Second Amended Response to
Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure was served on the attorneys for the Plaintiff, Mr. Donovan
Campbell, Jr., Rader& Campbell, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1125,Dallas, Texas 75207, and
Mr. J. Patrick Bredehoft, Bredehoft & Associates, 2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1A125, Dallas,
Texas 75207by telecopy andregular mailon thisthe4&-day of September,

ROBERT H. RENNEKER
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)742-7100
Telecopier: (214)742-7110
TO: Donovan Campbell, Jr./J. Patrick Bredehoft
NUMBER: (214) 630-9996
DATE: September^ 2009
RE: No. 08-11922-F; Nancy B. Hamon,by and throughher Agent and Attorney-
DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: (1)Defendants' FirstSupplemental Answer; (2)

the Original Counterclaim of Defendant Brenda S. Lagow; and (3)
Defendants' Second Amended Response to Plaintiffs' Request for
Disclosure.
MESSAGE:
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: Thismessage is intended onlyfortheuseofthe individual orentity

towhich it isaddressed. Thismessage contains information from the lawfirm of Robert H. Renneker
whichmaybeprivileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure underapplicable law. Ifthe reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication inerror, please notify usimmediately atourtelephone number (214) 742-7100. We
will behappy to arrange forthe return of this message to us, viatheUnited States Postal Service, at
no cost to you.
;EP-04-20P9(FRI) 14:57 (FAX)214 742 7110 P.001
Transaction Report
Send
Transaction(s) completed
No. TX Date/Tioe Destination Duration P.i Result Mode
SinSF.P-r.4 14:56 2146309996 "'°107' °12 0K LJH-
ROBERT H. RENNEKER
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 742-7100
Telecopier (214)742-7110
E-Mail: renneker@verizon.nct
TO: Donovan Campbell, JrVJ. Patrick Bredehoft

NUMBER: (214) 630-9996
DATE: September 4,2009
RE* No. 08-11922-F; Nancy B. Hamon, by and through her Agent and Attorney-
DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: (1) Defendants' FirstSupplemental Answer; (2)
the Original Counterclaim of Defendant Brenda S. Lagow; and (3)
Defendants' Second Amended Response to Plaintiffs' Request for
Disclosure.
MESSAGE:

1 DEFENDANT'S
I EXHIBIT
No. 08-11922-F
NANCY B. HAMON, by and through § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L. §
Roach, §
§
Plaintiff §
§
v. § 116™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
S. LAGOW, §
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S UNCONTESTED FIRST MOTION

FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Nancy B. Hamon, by andthrough her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, JohnL.
Roach, Plaintiffinthe above-captioned action (the "Plaintiff'), and, in accordance with Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure 251 and 252 and Local Rule 3.01, files this her Plaintiffs Uncontested First
Motion for Continuance ofTrial Setting (the "Motion") and would show the Court as follows.
1. Jury trial is presently set to commence in this case on October 5, 2009. Plaintiff
hereby requests a continuance ofthis trial setting on all ofthe following grounds.
2. Additional time is required for Plaintiff to complete potential document and
deposition discovery, especially with respect to recently pled claims and defenses of Defendant
Brenda S. Lagow. On or about September 4, 2009, approximately thirty (30) days prior to the
present trial setting, this Defendant ("Ms. Lagow") filed her Original Counterclaim ofDefendant
Brenda S. Lagow (the "Counterclaim") alleging, for the first time, that Plaintiff committed usury

FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING Page 1
with respect tothe Notes at issue in this lawsuit and claiming that she is entitled to recover from
Plaintiff three times the amount of "excess interest" plus $300,000.00. Additionally, on or about
September 4, 2009, both Defendants filed their Defendants' First Supplemental Answer (the
"Supplemental Answer") also alleging, for the first time, an affirmative defense ofusury. Because
these two pleadings were filed so close in time to the current trial setting, Plaintiff has had no
adequate opportunity to obtain potential documents relevant to these new claims and defenses or
totake oral depositions ofDefendants regarding same. After potential further document production
and an adequate time for Plaintifftoreview documents, Plaintiffanticipates that oral depositions will
benecessary. There isnot sufficient time to complete such discovery before the current trial setting.
3. In addition, the procedural status of this case dictates that a continuance should be
granted. Immediately before the September 4, 2009 new pleadings were filed by Defendants,
Plaintiff was preparing to file and serve its Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the
"MSJ") regarding Plaintiffs primary claims of default on the Promissory Notes and breach of
contract. Plaintiffanticipated that the Court's decision onthis MSJ would either obviate the need
for any trial whatsoever or significantly streamline any trial necessary on claims or defenses
remaining after ruling on the MSJ. Defendants' new pleadings have now required some
modification of the MSJ before Plaintiff files same, but Plaintiff anticipates filing this MSJ in the
immediate future and setting it for hearing at theCourt'searliest available opportunity, subject to
the standard summary judgment notice provisions. Plaintiffcontends thatmost of thesubstantive
claims and defenses currently advanced by all parties can bedetermined by the Court in its ruling
on the upcoming MSJ, which determination, again, could significantly streamline any necessary trial
or, perhaps, render needless any trial whatsoever. On the present trial setting, however, insufficient
FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING Page2
time remains for the prompt filing and twenty-one-day notice requirement for any hearing on such
MSJ. Accordingly, a reasonable continuance isnecessary to allow proper filing and processing of
such MSJ.
4. Inaddition, moretime is needed forallparties to pursue settlement negotiations and
mediation. Some initial settlement inquiries have been made between the parties, butthe present
trial setting does not allow for significant, substantive settlement negotiations and any potential
mediation. While it is premature to anticipate whether full settlement could be reached, even if
partial settlement can be accomplished in the near future, any necessary trial could be significantly
streamlined. Additional time isnecessary to devote tosuch settlement-mediation efforts, asopposed
to consuming thattime in trial-preparation activities.
5. Accordingly, Plaintiffproposes atrial continuance offour tosix months, with the trial
beingreset sometime in the mid-January-to-March2010timeframe, subject, ofcourse, to the Court's

calendar. Opposing counsel ofrecord has agreed to the grant ofthis Motion and the requested trial
continuance.
6. Because this casehas been on file forjust overone year, in accordance with Local
Rule 3.01(b), Plaintiff has indicated approval ofthis Motion in writing by his signature below.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff moves the Court to grant this
Uncontested Motion and to continue the trial setting in this case and reset same for sometime in
January-March 2010 or another date convenient to the Court in the first quarter of2010. Plaintiff
also prays for such other and further relief, special or general, atlaw orin equity, to which she may
be justiy entitled.

FOR CONTINUANCE OFTRIAL SETTING Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
Donovan Campbell, Jr.

State Bar No. 03725300
McCord Wilson
RADER & CAMPBELL
(A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION)
Stemmons Place
2777 Stemmons Fwy., Suite 1125
Dallas, Texas 75207
Telephone No.: (214) 630-4700
Telecopy No.: (214)630-9996
J. Patrick Bredehoft
2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1124
Dallas, Texas 75207
Telephone No.: (214) 819-8085
Telecopy No.: (214) 630-9996
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counselfor Plaintiffhas personallyconducteda conferencewith opposing counsel ofrecord

herein, and said counsel does not oppose this Motion and agrees to the resetting of this trial.
Accordingly, this Motion is unopposed but presented to the Court for determination pursuant to
Local Rules 2.06 and 3.01.
Certified to this Q/^ day ofSeptember, 2009.
^^tx/) V&kA
Donovan Campbell, Jr
PLAINTIFFS UNCONTESTED FIRST MOTION

FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING Page4
Local Rule 3.01<h\ Personal Approval of Client
Nancy B. Hamon, by and through her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, Jolm L. Roach, Plaintiff
in this case, hereby confirms that he has read and understood the above Motion, that he agrees with
its contents, and that he personally approves ofthe continuance sought herein.
Agent and, Attorney-in-Fact
Ihereby certify that on this 3£r>dav of September, 2009, atrue and correct copy of the
foregoing document (and any attachments) was forwarded by hand delivery, telecopy transmittal,
and/or certified mail, return receipt requested, to all counsel ofrecord, as follows:
Robert H. Renneker, Esq. VIA TELECOPY and U. S. MAIL

Dallas, TX 75202
Telecopy: (214) 742-7110

VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared Donovan
Campbell, Jr.,who, being by me dulysworn on oath, deposed and saidthat he is counsel of record
to Plaintiff in the above-referenced action; that he has read the above and foregoing Plaintiffs
Uncontested First Motion for Continuance; and that the factual statements contained therein are
within his personal knowledge and are true and correct.
A->cAjl/Mua( 0/
Donovan Campl
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, thi ly of

September, 2009.
(Printed Name ofNotary)
My Commission Expires:
»-ssr •1 Note,y PuWte- Statepf Texas

ifflvrvil MyCommission Expires
October 04,2010
PLAINTIFFS UNCONTESTED FIRST MOTION


05 10 1499 CV

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

05 10 1499 CV

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

05-10-1499-CV | DEFENDANTS

5th Court of Appeals

TO: Donovan Campbell, Jr./J. Patrick Bredehoft

NUMBER: (214) 630-9996

DATE: July 29,2009

FROM: Robert H. Renneker

DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: Defendants' First Amended Response to

TOTAL PAGES (Including This Page): 6

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message is intendedonly forthe use ofthe individual orentity

NANCY B. HAMON, by and through IN THE DISTRICT COURT

VS. 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA

DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE

to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure and would show the following:

1. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit.

The names of the parties are correctly stated.

2. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties.

Defendants are unaware of any potential parties at this time.

DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

Defendants arenot seeking economic damages at thepresent time.

Ms. Hamon is the Plaintiff in this lawsuit.

The Lagows are the Defendants in this lawsuit.

6. For any testifying expert:

DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

Robert H. Renneker is Defendants' counsel and may be called to render an opinion

7. Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements.

8. Any discoverable settlement agreements.

9. Any discoverable witness statements.

DEFENDANTS'FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

Defendant is unaware of any responsible third party at the present time.

1412 Main Street

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS' ETRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO

366 JUL-29 14:43 2146309996 0-00"33" 006 OK N ECM

TO: Donovan Campbell, JrVJ. Patrick Bredehoft

NUMBER: (214) 630-9996

DATE: July 29,2009

FROM: Robert H. Renneker

DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: Defendants' First Amended Response to

TOTAL PAGES (IncludingThis Page): 6

BREDEHOFT & ASSOCIATES

TFT .rcmpv COVER SHEET

DATE: June 23,2009

TO: Robert H. Renneker, Esq. TELECOPY NO.: (214) 742-7110

FROM: Patrick Bredehoft

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):

Bredehoft & Associates

2777 N. StemmonB Freeway, Ste. 1125

Ftosfmile (2M) 63W.W»

GaryFitesimmons . VIA HAND DELIVERY

Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons:

As always, thank you for your assistance inthis matter.

cc: RobertH. Renneker, Esq. (w/encl.) VIA TELECOPY and

Robert H. Renneker ••* cy—

THE ADOLPHUS TOWER

VIA TELECOPYAND REGULAR MAIL

Mr. Donovan Campbell, Jr.

Mr. J. Patrick Bredehoft

Thank you for your attention in this matter

ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT BRENDA S. LAGOW

this her Original Counterclaim and in support thereofwould showthe following:

1.0 Factual Background.