in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Opinion

ACCEPTED

05-15-00495-CV

05-15-00495-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

4/17/2015 8:35:00 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

No. ________ FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

4/17/2015 8:35:00 AM

LISA MATZ

In The Clerk

COURT OF APPEALS fifth DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas, Texas

In Re Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Petition from Cause No. DC-13-04564 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Honorable Carl Ginsberg, Presiding Judge

MANDAMUS RECORD

INDEX OF MANDAMUS RECORD

Certification Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition Tab 1

Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Second Amended Answer Tab 2

Defendants Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership and Post Properties, Inc.’s Second Amended Answer Tab 3

Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 4

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 5

Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Island’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 6

Order Denying Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 7

Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s, Post Properties, Inc.’s, and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership’s Joint Motion for Reconsideration to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 8

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Emergency Hearing on Defendants’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe Tab 9

Order Denying Motions to Reconsider Motion to Allow Psychological Examination Tab 10

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 52.7

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared

Michael A. Yanof, the undersigned Affiant, who being first duly sworn, did depose

and say the following:

"My name is Michael A. Yanof. I am over the age of eighteen, of sound mind,

capable of making this Affidavit, and fully competent to testify to the matters stated

herein as lead appellate counsel for Relators in this Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are true and correct.

I certify that each document attached hereto as the Relators' Record is:

1. ) a true and correct copy of a pleading or filing in the underlying proceeding; and

2. ) is material to Relators' claim for relief in their Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

S U B S C R I B E D AND SWORN TO B E F O R E M E , on the 16th day of April, 2015, to certify which witness my hand and official seal.

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

11/25/2013 4:59:38 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

Cause Number: DC-13-04564

JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

Plaintiff, § §

v. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT §

ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, § INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; § HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C.; § GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; § INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; POST ADDISION § CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; § PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; AJREDIN § “DANNY” DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; and § DOES 1-25, § §

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION

Plaintiff JANE DOE1 (“Plaintiff”) files Plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition (“Petition”)

against Defendants ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS

CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C.; GRAND PRIX FLOATING

LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION

III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING,

INC.; CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; JEFFREY H. FISHER, Individually; POST PROPERTIES,

1 Due to the extremely personal and sensitive nature of this lawsuit, Plaintiff is proceeding under the pseudonym of “Jane Doe”; however, Defendants have full knowledge of Plaintiff’s identity due to Defendants’ involvement in the underlying acts and omissions that form the basis of this Petition. To the extent that Defendants or Defendants’ counsel are genuinely unaware of Plaintiff’s identity (which would likely be impossible due to criminal proceedings against at least one Defendant in Dallas County, Texas, Case No. F1111106), Plaintiff’s counsel is happy to state

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1 OF 24

INC.; POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.;

AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; and DOES 1-25 (unless otherwise noted

herein, “Defendants” refers to all named Defendants, collectively), and for causes of action

respectfully shows this Court as follows:

I.

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Pursuant to this Court’s uniform Scheduling Order, discovery in this case is being

conducted under a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Collin County, Texas.

3. Defendant ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC. (hereinafter,

“Island Hospitality”) is a Florida corporation that has generally appeared in this case.

4. Defendant HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION (hereinafter, “Hyatt”) is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois and has generally

appeared in this case.

5. Defendant HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C. (hereinafter, “Hyatt

House”) is a Kansas limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

6. Defendant GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC (hereinafter, “Grand Prix”)

is a Delaware limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

7. Defendant INK ACQUISITION, LLC (hereinafter, “Ink Acquisition”) is a Florida

limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

8. Defendant INK ACQUISITION II, LLC (hereinafter, “Ink Acquisition II”) is a

Florida limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 2 OF 24 9. Defendant INK ACQUISITION III, LLC (hereinafter, “Ink Acquisition III”) is a

Florida limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

10. Defendant INK LESSEE, LLC (hereinafter, “Ink Lessee”) is a Delaware limited

liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

11. Defendant INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC (hereinafter, “Ink Lessee Holding”) is

a Delaware limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

12. Defendant CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC. (hereinafter, “Chatham Holding”)

is a Florida limited liability company that has generally appeared in this case.

13. Defendant CHATHAM LODGING, L.P. (hereinafter, “Chatham Lodging”) is a

Delaware limited partnership that has generally appeared in this case.

14. Defendant JEFFREY H. FISHER (hereinafter, “Fisher”) is a natural person who

is believed to be a resident of, and domiciled in, the State of Florida and has generally appeared

in this case.

15. Defendant POST PROPERTIES, INC. is a Georgia corporation that has generally

appeared in this case.

16. Defendant POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is a Georgia

limited partnership that that has generally appeared in this case.

17. Defendant PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC. (hereinafter, “PPI”) is a Texas corporation

that has generally appeared in this case.

18. Defendant AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI (hereinafter, “Deari”) is a natural

person who has generally appeared in this case.

19. Defendant DRITAN KREKA (hereinafter, “Kreka”) is a natural person who has

generally appeared in this case.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 3 OF 24 20. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the true identities and

residences of Defendants JOHN DOE 13-25, respectively, are currently unknown to Plaintiff at

this time. Plaintiff shall proceed with due diligence to discover the identities of Defendants

JOHN DOE 13-25, respectively, and after said Defendants’ true identities have been discovered,

Plaintiff will amend this Petition accordingly.

21. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that, at all material times,

Defendants Hyatt, Hyatt House, Island Hospitality Management, Grand Prix, Ink Acquisition,

Ink Acquisition II, Ink Acquisition III, Ink Lessee, Ink Lessee Holding, Chatham Holding,

Chatham Lodging, and Fisher (collectively referred to herein as “Alter Ego Defendant” or “Alter

Ego Defendants”) were the agents, servants, employees, partners, authorized agents and/or joint

venturers of every other Alter Ego Defendant and the acts of each Alter Ego Defendant was

within the course and scope of the agency, employment, partnership, joint enterprise, and/or joint

venture such that each Alter Ego Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the damages Alter

Ego Defendants caused Plaintiff as alleged herein and, further, that each Alter Ego Defendant is

jointly and severally responsible for the acts and/or omissions of every other Alter Ego

Defendant. Plaintiff specifically alleges and asserts the alter ego theory of liability against the

Alter Ego Defendants because the Alter Ego Defendants are simply the alter ego of each other

due to such a unity of interest and ownership between the business entities and its equitable

owner or owners that the separate personalities of the business entities and shareholder/equitable

owner or owners do not, in reality, exist, and because if the acts complained of herein are those

of the business entities themselves than an inequitable result to Plaintiff would occur. Thus,

Plaintiff specifically alleges that any and all acts or omissions taken by any of the Alter Ego

Defendants, indeed, acts or omissions taken by all Alter Ego Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 4 OF 24 22. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that, at all material times,

Defendants POST PROPERTIES, INC. and POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP (collectively, referred to herein as “Post Properties”) were the agents, servants,

employees, partners, authorized agents and/or joint venturers of one another and the acts of each

entity was within the course and scope of the agency, employment, partnership, joint enterprise,

and/or joint venture such that each entity is jointly and severally liable for the damages Post

Properties caused Plaintiff as alleged herein and, further, that the Post Properties Defendants are

jointly and severally responsible for the acts and/or omissions of one another. Plaintiff

specifically alleges and asserts the alter ego theory of liability against Post Properties because

Post Properties are simply the alter ego of one another due to such a unity of interest and

ownership between the business entities and its equitable owner or owners that the separate

personalities of the business entities and shareholder/equitable owner or owners do not, in

reality, exist, and because if the acts complained of herein are those of the business entities

themselves than an inequitable result to Plaintiff would occur. Thus, Plaintiff specifically alleges

that any and all acts or omissions taken by Post Properties were, indeed, acts or omissions taken

by each entity.

III.

JURISDICTION

23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the amount in

controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional requirements.

24. In accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 47, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in excess of

$1,000,000.00 due to Defendants’ tortious, outrageous, and grossly negligent conduct.

25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Deari, Kreka, PPI, Hyatt,

and Island Hospitality because the foregoing Defendants have generally appeared in this case.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 5 OF 24 26. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Hyatt House, Grand Prix,

Ink Acquisition, Ink Acquisition II, Ink Acquisition III, Ink Lessee, Ink Lessee Holding,

Chatham Holding, Chatham Lodging, Fisher, and Post Properties because each of the

aforementioned Defendants (1) engage in, and transact business within, the State of Texas, (2)

maintain continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Texas, (3) purposefully avail, or

availed, itself to the laws of the State of Texas, (4) committed a tort or torts, in whole or in part,

in the State of Texas against a Texas resident, and (5) a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Texas and involved said Defendants.

27. Removal of this case to a federal court is inappropriate and statutorily

unauthorized because (1) complete diversity of parties is lacking, (2) at least one Defendant is a

forum-state defendant by virtue of its status as a Texas business entity and/or principal place of

business being located in Texas, and (3) Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question, federal cause

of action, or alleged facts that would give rise to a federal question, federal cause of action,

and/or “federal officer” removal jurisdiction; therefore, any attempt to remove this case to a

federal court is frivolous and gives rise to sanctionable conduct.

IV. VENUE

28. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a), venue is proper in Dallas

County, Texas because (1) all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas, and (2) some or all of the Defendants

resided in Dallas County, Texas at the time Plaintiff’s causes of action accrued.

29. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.005, because venue is proper in

Dallas County, Texas as to at least one Defendant, venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas as to

all Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6 OF 24

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

30. Plaintiff expressly incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,

paragraphs 1 through 29 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

31. In early 2011, Plaintiff was 18 years old and a recent graduate from high school.

Plaintiff excelled in school academically, graduating as the valedictorian of her class.

32. Like many young adults, Plaintiff was in search of an entry-level job at a local

business in order to earn disposable income and garner working experience. While networking

for such a job, Plaintiff was introduced to Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka. Plaintiff was

told that Deari and Kreka were the owners of two local bar/restaurants, and would be willing to

meet with her to lend any insight they may have.

33. On or about April 26, 2011, Plaintiff met Deari and Kreka at a restaurant in

Dallas, Texas. Although this meeting was not employment-related, Plaintiff met with said

Defendants merely to continue networking.

34. Deari asked Plaintiff how old she was and Plaintiff informed both men that she

was 18 years old. At the time, Defendant Deari was approximately 49 years old and Defendant

Kreka was approximately 33 years old. The two Defendants subsequently tried to order Plaintiff

an alcoholic beverage; however, the restaurant’s server refused to bring the beverage because

Plaintiff was underage.

35. Undeterred, Deari and Kreka decided that it would be easiest to order Plaintiff

beverages at Defendant PPI’s Addison, Texas location. Indeed, Defendant Deari was, and is, the

registered agent, director, and president of PPI. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that

PPI, as lessee, leases the physical space for its Addison, Texas location from Defendant Post

Properties, as lessor (as confirmed by Century Surety Company, CCP672836 and said

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 7 OF 24

Defendants’ original, first, and second amended leases for said property).

36. As the two men had planned, Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka convinced

Plaintiff to drive to PPI. Prior to their arrival, Defendant Deari purchased hard liquor from a store

with the intention of personally serving the alcohol to Plaintiff. Neither Deari nor PPI were

licensed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to sell or serve hard liquor.

37. Upon arrival at PPI, Defendants Kreka and Deari began serving, retrieving, and

otherwise giving Plaintiff multiple “shots” of hard liquor. Defendant PPI’s other employees—

who were acting within the course and scope of their employment—also negligently served

Plaintiff beer without ever asking for identification. Defendants Deari and Kreka repeatedly and

aggressively pressured Plaintiff into consuming—and Plaintiff, indeed, consumed—alcoholic

beverages despite their knowledge that Plaintiff was not of legal age to drink. Just as Defendants

Deari and Kreka planned, Plaintiff became intoxicated and she was, in fact, obviously

intoxicated. PPI’s other employees negligently failed to identify Plaintiff’s over-service.

38. After Plaintiff had consumed multiple shots of hard liquor and servings of beer,

Deari and Kreka decided that their next stop should be to take Plaintiff to a local adult

entertainment establishment. Deari retrieved his vehicle from PPI’s parking lot and told Kreka

and Plaintiff to get into the vehicle. Kreka moved into the driver’s seat and Plaintiff, who was

highly intoxicated, sat in the back of the vehicle. Plaintiff then lost consciousness.

39. Plaintiff’s next memory is vomiting in a gas station parking lot before losing

consciousness again. Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff regained consciousness in a hotel room

located at 4900 Edwin Lewis Drive, Addison, Texas 75001 wherein she had been involuntarily

disrobed and was actively being raped by Defendant Deari. Said hotel is a premise that was, and

is, owned, operated, controlled, managed, and/or otherwise possessed by the Alter Ego

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 8 OF 24

Defendants as owner, franchisor, franchisee, assignor, assignee, lessor, lessee, transferor,

transferee, manager, and as the alter egos of each other and/or Hyatt and/or Fisher. Said premises

lacked any reasonable degree of security that could have, and would have, prevented or mitigated

the reasonably foreseeable attack on Plaintiff.

40. Plaintiff repeatedly insisted that Defendant Deari stop the attack, but he did not. It

was only after Plaintiff made multiple demands for Defendant Deari to stop did the sexual

assault eventually end. Fearful of another attack, Plaintiff locked herself in the bathroom.

41. While still in the hotel room—and without ever being impeded by the Alter Ego

Defendants—Defendant Deari called Defendant Kreka on the telephone and told him that

Plaintiff was “really freaking out, dude”, and asked for Kreka to retrieve him from the Alter Ego

Defendants’ premises. With the knowledge that a sexual assault had just occurred (one in which

Defendant Kreka conspired to commit, facilitated, aided, and abetted), Kreka retrieved Deari

from the crime scene (again, unimpeded by the Alter Ego Defendants) thereby assisting Deari’s

evasion of law enforcement.

42. Plaintiff alleges that the Alter Ego Defendants knew, or reasonably should have

known, of the reasonably foreseeable, unreasonable risks of harm from criminal activity at its

premises to Plaintiff taking into account the history, frequency, proximity, regularity, publicity,

and similarity of criminal conduct on or near the Alter Ego Defendants’ property. The Alter Ego

Defendants negligently and grossly negligently allowed Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka

to reserve a room at its hotel, enter it with an unconscious 18 year-old woman, rape her, and

come and go from its property in an unimpeded fashion such that Defendants could evade a

police investigation without resistance.

43. After the attack on Plaintiff ceased and Deari and Kreka left the Alter Ego

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 9 OF 24

Defendants’ premises, a friend of Plaintiff’s arrived at the hotel to help. After learning what

happened, the friend immediately notified the Addison Police Department. While investigating

the crime scene, Defendant Deari—while smoking a cigar—came back to the hotel (presumably

to retrieve the underwear he left, which was taken into evidence by the police department), and

Deari was arrested, charged with the crime of sexual assault, indicted, and has a criminal trial

pending. At this point in time, Defendant Kreka has not been charged for the crimes he aided,

abetted, facilitated, and conspired to commit; however, on information and belief Plaintiff

alleges that the State of Texas is well within the statute of limitations for such a crime to arrest,

charge, and indict Kreka for his involvement in the attack on Plaintiff.

44. Plaintiff was immediately transmitted to the hospital and underwent a series of

examinations, tests, and administered massive quantities of treatments for the injuries she

incurred during the rape.

45. Within a matter of days following the sexual assault, Plaintiff went back to the

hospital after she experienced severe pain in her pubic region. Upon information and belief, the

doctors informed Plaintiff that she had contracted herpes, an incurable sexually-transmitted

disease, during the rape. The doctors conducted a blood test on Plaintiff wherein the specific

strand of herpes was identified. It has recently been discovered that the results of a mandatory

blood/sexually-transmitted disease test ordered by the Court in “The State of Texas v. Danny

Deari” has confirmed that Plaintiff’s attacker (who did not utilize latex contraception during the

attack), Defendant Deari, is infected with the same derivation of the herpes virus and

undoubtedly infected Plaintiff.

46. As a proximate result of the despicable, extreme, outrageous, tortious, and grossly

negligent acts and omissions by Defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered,

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 10 OF 24 and will continue to suffer, through extreme emotional distress, pain, mental anguish, and

suffering as the sexual assault is constantly replayed in her mind and the aftermath displayed on

her body. Plaintiff is forced to shoulder the burden of Defendants’ horrible acts for the rest of her

life which, according to the federal government’s “National Vital Statistics Reports”, is expected

to be another 61.6 years.2 Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial damages

that were all proximately caused by Defendants.

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1: ASSAULT – THREAT OF BODILY INJURY

47. Plaintiff’s first cause of action is alleged against Defendants Deari and Kreka,

only. As used in this cause of action, “Defendants” refers to Defendant Deari and Defendant

Kreka.

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 47 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

49. On or about April 26, 2011, Defendants intentionally or knowingly threatened

Plaintiff with imminent bodily injury. Defendants’ threat of imminent bodily injury caused

Plaintiff to be apprehensive, which was a foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions.

50. Defendants are liable for the threat of bodily injury committed against Plaintiff

because Defendants participated in the tortious acts themselves or, alternatively, assisted the

tortious act against Plaintiff in furtherance of the civil conspiracy to do so or, alternatively, aided

and abetted each other to allow the ultimate threat of bodily injury against Plaintiff to take place.

51. Defendants’ threat of imminent bodily injury to Plaintiff was a cause of the

damages alleged herein.

2 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS Vol. 61, No.3, September 24, 2012 at 20.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 11 OF 24

COUNT 2: ASSAULT (BATTERY) –BODILY INJURY AND OFFENSIVE CONTACT

52. Plaintiff’s second cause of action is alleged against Defendants Deari and Kreka,

only. As used in this cause of action, “Defendants” refers to Defendants Deari and Kreka.

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 52 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the statutory

language of TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 22.01, 22.011 describing the felonies of “Assault” and “Sexual

Assault”. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was the victim of the aforementioned crimes that

Defendants committed against Plaintiff on or about April 26, 2011, and that said crimes have

caused Plaintiff’s damages alleged herein.

55. Defendants intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly made physical contact

with Plaintiff’s person causing bodily injury—that is, physical pain, illness, or impairments of

Plaintiff’s physical condition—and Plaintiff did not, and could not, consent to the harmful

physical contact.

56. Alternatively, Defendants intentionally or knowingly caused to be made physical

contact with Plaintiff when Defendants knew, or reasonably should have believed, that Plaintiff

would regard the contact as offensive or provocative. Indeed, said physical contact was

offensive, provocative, and committed by Defendants despite never having consent from

Plaintiff.

57. As a causal result of Defendants’ battery of Plaintiff’s person, Plaintiff suffered

immediate, consequential, and subsequent injuries—including pain, illness, and physical

impairment—that were foreseeable to Defendants. The assault committed by Defendants on

Plaintiff’s person was a cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 12 OF 24 58. Defendants are liable for the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual assault of which

Plaintiff is a victim because Defendants participated in the tortious and felonious acts themselves

or, alternatively, assisted the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual assault against Plaintiff in

furtherance of the civil conspiracy to do so or, alternatively, aided and abetted the crimes,

assault, battery, and sexual assault by providing intoxicating substances to Plaintiff, a mode of

transportation for the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual assault to occur, and/or a location—

which was foreseeably unsafe and unreasonably dangerous—for the crimes, assault, battery, and

sexual assault to take place.

59. In addition to committing, conspiring to commit, or aiding and abetting assault,

battery, and/or sexual assault against Plaintiff, the investigation is still ongoing as to whether or

not Defendants individually—or collectively in furtherance of a conspiracy and/or whilst aiding

and abetting each other—should be charged with, criminally prosecuted for, and civilly held

liable for the felony of “Aggravated Sexual Assault”, as defined by TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021

and fully incorporated by reference herein.

COUNT 3: SEXUAL ASSAULT—TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011

60. Plaintiff’s third cause of action is alleged against Defendants Deari and Kreka,

only. As used in this cause of action, “Defendants” refers to Defendants Deari and Kreka.

61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 60 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

COUNT 4: FALSE IMPRISONMENT

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 60 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

63. Without legal authority or justification, Defendants willfully detained or

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 13 OF 24 participated in the detainment of Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent. Defendants accomplished

the unlawful detainment of Plaintiff with violence, threats that were calculated to inspire—and,

in fact, inspired—a reasonable fear of injury to Plaintiff, intoxicating substances, and/or other

means that were intended to cause—and, in fact, caused—Plaintiff to be unable to exercise her

will in going anywhere she was lawfully allowed to go. Said false imprisonment took place at the

hotel owned and operated by the Alter Ego Defendants, interior of the restaurant possessed,

owned and/or controlled by Post Properties and PPI (due to Plaintiff’s physical inability and/or

lawful ability to leave in such an unconscious and/or intoxicated state), and exterior of the

restaurant in the “common area” possessed, owned and/or controlled by Post Properties and PPI.

64. The false imprisonment committed by Defendants against Plaintiff was a

proximate cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

COUNT 5: NEGLIGENCE

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 64 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

66. Defendants owed Plaintiff legal duties that Defendants breached thereby

proximately causing Plaintiff’s damages.

67. For example, the Alter Ego Defendants, for example, as innkeepers owed Plaintiff

a duty to use the appropriate legal standard of care in maintaining its premises in a safe and

secure condition and to inspect the premises to ensure the safety of its occupants, a duty to

protect Plaintiff against unreasonable and foreseeable risks of harm from the criminal acts of

third parties due to the Alter Ego Defendants’ status (as landowner and, further, the heightened

duty owed by an innkeeper) and ability to control the security and safety of the premises, a duty

not to injure Plaintiff in a willful, wanton, or grossly negligent manner or allow another to do so

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 14 OF 24 on its premises when it knew, or reasonably should have known, such conduct would take place,

a duty to make safe conditions on its property in order to protect Plaintiff, and a duty to treat

Plaintiff in a manner that would not subject her to physical or mental injury. As alleged fully

herein, there can be no dispute that the Alter Ego Defendants breached each and every one of the

duties it owed Plaintiff. Defendants PPI and Post Properties, for example, had a duty to use the

appropriate legal standard of care to ensure that invitees at the PPI Addison, Texas location

would be safe, secure, and that the normal and lawful activities that would otherwise take place

at the restaurant would not harm its invitees. Defendants PPI and Post Properties breached these

duties owed to Plaintiff. Post Properties also had a duty to protect Plaintiff, and the public as a

whole, from unlawful lessees of its property by conducting a reasonable investigation into its

lessees and/or terminate a lease upon the happening of an unlawful event (such as PPI’s citation

from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in 2002 for serving a minor alcohol) and,

further, a duty to control the activities taking place on the “common area” outside of the

restaurant to ensure the safety of the individuals on said property; however, Post Properties

clearly breached these duties and, moreover, actually extended PPI’s lease just days after the

attack on Plaintiff occurred and to this day has not terminated said lease. Defendant PPI had a

duty to control its employees, a duty to supervise its employee’s activities, a duty to prevent an

employee from causing an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff, a duty to use the appropriate

legal standard of care in hiring and retaining its employees, a duty to not place Plaintiff in harm’s

way of foreseeable criminal activity, and a duty to treat Plaintiff in a manner that would not

subject her to physical or mental injury. PPI breached those duties it owed Plaintiff by, amongst

other things, negligently providing intoxicating substances to Plaintiff, negligently hiring its

employees, negligently supervising its employees, and/or placing her in harm’s way. Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 15 OF 24

Kreka, by way of example, owed Plaintiff a legal duty to protect Plaintiff from harm when the

danger was caused, in part, by Kreka and the harm was apparent to Kreka such that he was in a

position to protect Plaintiff from the harm, a duty to not place Plaintiff in harm’s way of

foreseeable criminal activity, a duty to not operate a vehicle when legally intoxicated thereby

placing Plaintiff in danger and, ultimately, causing her to arrive at the location where she was

sexually assaulted, and a duty to treat Plaintiff in a manner that would not subject her to physical

or mental injury. Defendant Kreka breached each and every one of these duties as detailed in this

Petition.

68. Defendants breached the duties it owed to Plaintiff thereby proximately causing

Plaintiff’s injuries and the damages alleged herein.

COUNT 6: PREMISES LIABILITY

69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 68 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

70. Plaintiff’s cause of action for Premises Liability is alleged against the Alter Ego

Defendants, PPI, and Post Properties, only. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and amend

this cause of action. As used in this cause of action, “Defendants” refers to the Alter Ego

Defendants, PPI, and Post Properties.

71. The Alter Ego Defendants facilitated the assault and tortious conduct on Plaintiff

through the use or misuse of the property—located at 4900 Edwin Lewis Drive, Addison, Texas

75001—owned, operated, controlled by, franchised by, licensed by, managed, leased, assigned,

and/or otherwise possessed by the Alter Ego Defendants and, further, PPI and Post Properties

facilitated the assault and tortious conduct on Plaintiff through the use or misuse of PPI’s

Addison, Texas location that was owned, operated, controlled by, franchised by, licensed by,

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 16 OF 24 managed, leased, assigned, and/or otherwise possessed by PPI and Post Properties.

72. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to use the appropriate standard of care in

protecting Plaintiff from unreasonable and reasonably foreseeable risks of harm (including

criminal activity at its premises considering the history, frequency, proximity, regularity,

publicity, and similarity of criminal conduct on or near the Alter Ego Defendants’ property)

especially in light of Defendants’ status as landowner and/or innkeeper that possessed the ability

to control the security and safety of the premise and its employees. Defendants had a duty to

inspect and make safe any dangerous conditions or situations on its property or give Plaintiff an

adequate warning of the dangerous conditions or situations; however, Defendants failed to do so.

73. Defendants breached the legal duties it owed Plaintiff thereby proximately

causing Plaintiff’s damages alleged herein.

COUNT 7: DRAM SHOP LIABILITY

74. Plaintiff’s cause of action for Dram Shop Liability is alleged against Post

Properties and Deari—in his capacity as registered agent, director, and president of PPI—, only.

Further, Plaintiff alleges this cause of action in the alternative to Counts 4-6 against Post

Properties. As used in this cause of action, “Dram Shop Defendants” refers to PPI, Deari, and

Post Properties (in the alternative to Counts 4-6 against Post Properties). Plaintiff reserves the

right to supplement and amend this cause of action.

75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 74 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

76. On or about April 26, 2011, the Dram Shop Defendants held Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission licenses for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages and did, in fact, sell

or serve multiple alcoholic beverages to Plaintiff who, at the time, was an 18 year-old “adult

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 17 OF 24 recipient” of said beverages. However, Dram Shop Defendants were not authorized to sell hard

liquor at PPI’s Addison, Texas location.

77. To the extent that the Dram Shop Defendants did not hold Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission licenses for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages on or about April

26, 2011, Plaintiff alternatively alleges that the Dram Shop Defendants did not have said licenses

yet still sold Plaintiff, an 18 year-old “adult receipt”, alcoholic beverages.

78. After the Dram Shop Defendants provided the alcoholic beverages to Plaintiff, it

was apparent, or readily became apparent, to the Dram Shop Defendants that Plaintiff was

obviously intoxicated.

79. Plaintiff’s intoxication—as a result of the Dram Shop Defendants’ acts or

omissions—was one of the proximate causes of the injuries incurred and the damages alleged by

Plaintiff herein.

COUNT 8: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [ALTERNATIVE REMEDY]

80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 79 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

81. As an alternative remedy to Plaintiff’s claims detailed in this Petition at Section

(VI)(Count 1—Count 7), Plaintiff alleges that no alternative cause of action would provide

Plaintiff with a remedy for the severe emotional distress incurred by Plaintiff which was

proximately caused by Defendants’ tortious conduct.

82. Plaintiff—an individual—was and is a victim of Defendants’ intentional or

reckless actions that were calculated to cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

83. Defendants’ intentional or reckless actions towards Plaintiff were extreme and

outrageous and, ultimately, proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 18 OF 24

COUNT 9: PARTICIPATORY LIABILITY—AIDING AND ABETTING AND CONCERT OF ACTION

84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 83 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

85. Among the Defendants was a primary actor, or primary actors, who committed an

underlying tort, or torts, against Plaintiff. Defendants had knowledge that the primary actor’s

conduct constituted a tort and Defendants gave the primary actor assistance, substantial

assistance, and/or encouragement to commit the tort against Plaintiff. Defendants’ assistance,

substantial assistance, and/or encouragement was a substantial factor in causing the tort to be

completed and a substantial factor in the damages incurred by Plaintiff as alleged herein.

86. Alternatively, Defendants’ own conduct—separate and apart from the primary

actor—was a breach of duty to Plaintiff and a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

87. Due to Defendants’ joint assistance, encouragement, aiding and abetting, and/or

concert of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should be held jointly and severally

responsible for the whole of damages incurred by Plaintiff.

COUNT 10: PARTICIPATORY LIABILITY—CONSPIRACY

88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 87 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

89. As fully described in this Petition, Defendants are, and were, individuals or

individual entities that acted together as a combination of two or more individuals or entities.

90. Throughout Defendants’ interactions with Plaintiff on or about April 26, 2011, the

object of Defendants’ combination was to accomplish an unlawful purpose and/or a lawful

purpose by unlawful means.

91. Defendants had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action of its

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 19 OF 24 conspiracy, and at least one Defendant committed an unlawful, overt act in furtherance of

Defendants’ object or course of action.

92. Plaintiff suffered the damages alleged herein as a proximate result of Defendants’

wrongful act or acts.

COUNT 11: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

93. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 92 of Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

94. Defendants’ tortious conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent.

95. Defendants’ malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent was carried out by

Defendants personally, through Defendants’ authorized agents, managers, officers, directors,

vice-principals, and/or principals of the Defendants who were acting within the course and scope

of their agency, employment, partnership, and/or joint venture. Alternatively, Defendants’

malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent conduct was subsequently approved by or ratified

by Defendants.

96. Defendants intentionally breached the legal duties it owed Plaintiff such that it

could take undue advantage of Plaintiff and/or otherwise maliciously treat Plaintiff. The acts or

omissions of Defendants, when viewed objectively from the Defendants’ standpoint, involved an

extreme degree of risk when considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to

Plaintiff and others.

97. Additionally, Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk to Plaintiff

and others but proceeded anyway with a conscience indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare

of Plaintiff and others.

98. Defendants’ conduct was performed and/or designed with a specific intent to

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 20 OF 24 cause substantial injury or harm to Plaintiff. As alleged herein, Defendants’ conduct is an

example of why punitive damages exist, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct rises to

the level warranting the imposition of exemplary damages against Defendants at trial.

VII. DAMAGES

99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1

through 98 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

100. Plaintiff has incurred significant damages due to Defendants' criminal, tortious,

and outrageous conduct. Plaintiff seeks all losses sustained as a natural, probable, foreseeable,

and/or proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, including:

a. General damages;

b. Actual damages;

c. Physical pain and suffering incurred in the past and future;

d. Mental anguish incurred in the past and future;

e. Disfigurement incurred in the past and future;

f. Physical impairment incurred in the past and future;

g. Medical expenses incurred in the past and future;

h. Loss of earning capacity incurred in the past and future;

i. Lost wages incurred in the past and future;

j. All reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees that Plaintiff is forced to incur

pursuant to Texas common law and equity;

k. Exemplary damages;

l. Costs of court;

m. Pre-judgment interest;

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 21 OF 24

n. Post-judgment interest; and

o. All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

VIII.

DEMAND FOR JURY

101. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee.

IX.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

102. Plaintiff hereby demands that all Defendants make the disclosures, within the

timeframe provided therein, required by TEX. R. CIV. P. 194(a)-(l)

X. PRAYER

103. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be

cited to appear and answer herein. Plaintiff further prays that, upon trial by jury, she have

judgment against Defendants for the damages alleged herein, as well as all other relief, in law

and in equity, to which Plaintiff may prove herself to be justly entitled.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 22 OF 24

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

ROYCE WEST G. MICHAEL GRUBER State Bar No. 21206800 State Bar No. 08555400 royce.w@westllp.com mgruber@ghjhlaw.com VERETTA FRAZIER ERIC POLICASTRO State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No. 24068809 veretta.f@westllp.com epolicastro@ghjhlaw.com NIGEL REDMOND TREY CRAWFORD State Bar No. 24058852 State Bar No. 24059623 nigel.r@westllp.com tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP P.O. Box 3960 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75208-1260 Dallas, Texas 75202 Ofc.: (214) 941-1881 214.855.6800 (main) Fax: (214) 941-1399 214.855.6808 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 23 OF 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 21, 21a, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed on November 25, 2013 and was served on November 25, 2013 to the following individuals: Via Facsimile Via Facsimile

Hyatt Hotels Corporation Post Properties, Inc. Hyatt House Franchising, LLC Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership Island Hospitality Management, Inc. Ink Acquisition, LLC Randy Nelson Ink Acquisition II, LLC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP Ink Acquisition III, LLC Facsimile: (214) 871-8209 Ink Lessee, LLC Ink Lessee Holding, LLC Grand Prix Floating Lessee, LLC Chatham Lodging, LP Chatham TRS Holding, Inc. Jeffrey H. Fisher

Ramona Martinez Cobb Martinez Woodward PLLC Facsimile: (214) 220-5252 Via Facsimile Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested

Ajredin “Danny” Deari Dritan Kreka, pro se Pastazios Pizza, Inc.

5549 Big River Drive

Samuel H. Johnson The Colony, Texas 75056 Johnson Broome, P.C. Facsimile: (972) 584-6054 Via Facsimile

Royce West Nigel Redmond WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. Fax: (214) 941-1399

_______________________________________

Eric Policastro

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION PAGE 24 OF 24

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 3/31/2014 5:09:10 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

C A U S E NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

VS.

AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; D M T AN K R E K A ; PASTAZIOS P I Z Z A , I N C . ; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- M E N T , INC.; H Y A T T HOTELS § C O R P O R A T I O N ; H Y A T T HOUSE § FRANCHISING, L L C ; GRAND PRIX D A L L A S COUNTY, T E X A S F L O A TING L E S S E E , L L C ; I N K ACQUISITION, L L C ; I N K § ACQUISITION II, L L C ; INK § A C Q U I S I T I O N I I I , L L C ; INK L E S S E E , § L L C ; I N K L E S S E E HOLDING, L L C ; § C H A T H A M TRS H O L D I N G , I N C . ; § C H A T H A M L O D G I N G , L P ; JEFFREY § H . F I S H E R , Individually; P O S T r d

PROPERTIES, INC.; and D O E S 1-25 193 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY

M A N A G E M E N T , INC.'S SECOND A M E N D E D A N S W E R

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E J U D G E O F SAID C O U R T :

COMES N O W , Island Hospitality Management, Inc. ("Defendant"), one of the

Defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and files its Second Amended Answer,

and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I.

GENERAL DENIAL

Defendant generally denies the allegations contained in Plaintiffs live petition, demands

strict proof thereof, and says this is a matter for jury decision. Defendant further demands a trial

by jury.

D E F E N D A N T ISLAND H O S P I T A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T , INC.'S SECOND AMENDED A N S W E R PAGEI Document #117603

II.

A F F I R M A T I V E DEFENSES

Defendant asserts the following affirmative and other defenses:

a. Plaintiffs own acts or omissions caused or contributed to Plaintiffs injury.

b. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

c. Plaintiffs claims are barred under the doctrines of sole proximate cause, new

and independent cause, and/or intervening cause.

d. Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiff consented to the alleged conduct

of one or more of the defendants.

e. Plaintiffs claims are barred because Defendant is not a responsible party.

f. Plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred

because Plaintiff has the right to recover, if at all, under an alternative tort.

g. Plaintiffs claims are barred as a result of discharge in bankruptcy and/or

entity restructuring.

h. Pleading further, Defendant would show that the incident in question and the

damages alleged by Plaintiff, i f any, were caused, solely or partially, or

proximately caused by the fault or negligence of some person or third party

over whom Defendant had no right of nor actual control nor legal

responsibility.

i. Pleading further, Defendant would show the incident in question and the

damages alleged by Plaintiff were the result of the negligence and/or

intentional acts of third party criminals whom this Defendant had no actual or

legal right to control. In this regard, Defendant would show that such

negligence and/or intentional acts were the sole proximate cause, or

D E F E N D A N T ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.'S S E C O N D AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 2 Document #117603

alternatively, the new, independent, and/or intervening cause of the incident in

question and damages suffered.

j. Defendant asserts its right to have evidence regarding lost wage, loss of

earning capacity, loss of pecuniary value or loss of inheritance limited

pursuant to T E X . C I V . PRAC. & R E M . CODE § 18.091. Further, Defendant

asserts its right to have the jury instructed whether such damages are subject

to federal or state income tax.

k. Defendant asserts its right to have evidence regarding the amount billed

and/or written off for medical expenses excluded pursuant to T E X . Civ. PRAC.

& R E M . CODE § 4 1 . 0 1 0 5 .

1. Defendant further pleads it cannot be held to answer for punitive or exemplary

damages for acts or omissions of any employee or agent.

m. Defendant would show that its liability is limited by the provisions of Chapter

41 of the T E X . C I V . PRAC. & R E M . CODE; and any award of punitive damages

is barred to the extent it is inconsistent with the standards and limitations set

forth in BMW of North Am, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); and State Farm

Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003).

Consideration of any punitive damages in this civil action violates the due

process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

Constitution. An award of punitive damages is a punishment and a quasi-

criminal sanction for which Defendant is not afforded specific procedural

safeguards prescribed by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 3 Document #117603

Constitution. A n award of punitive damages violates Article 1, Sections 3, 13,

and 19 of the Texas Constitution,

n. Pleading further, Defendant states it is entitled under TEX. Civ. PRAC. & R E M .

CODE Chapter 41 to a limitation on the amount o f recovery of exemplary

damages pursuant to statute,

o. By way of further answer, i f same be necessary, Defendant affirmatively

pleads there can be no award of exemplary damages against Defendant

because of the criminal acts of another pursuant to § 41.005 of the T E X . Civ.

PRAC. & R E M . CODE.

p. Defendant asserts its right to proportionate responsibility, contribution,

comparative fault, indemnity and/or credit pursuant to Chapters 32 and 33 of

the T E X . C I V . PRAC. & R E M . CODE.

III.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

W H E R E F O R E , P R E M I S E S C O N S I D E R E D , Defendant prays that upon final hearing

hereof, Plaintiff take nothing by this suit, that Defendant recover its costs, and that Defendant

have such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Defendant may be justly

entitled.

D E F E N D A N T ISLAND H O S P I T A L I T Y MANAGEMENT, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 4 Document #117603

- !

Respectfully submitted,

COBB M A R T I N E Z W O O D W A R D PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 220-5202 (direct phone) (214) 220-5252 (direct fax)

By:

R A M ON A M A R T I N E Z Texas Bar No. 13144010 email: miartinezioicobbmartinez.com M A T T H E W E. L A S T Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: mlast@cobbma.rtinez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

D E F E N D A N T ISLAND H O S P I T A L I T Y MANAGEMENT, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGES Document #117603

C E R T I F I C A T E O F SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record either by telefax, electronic mail, certified mail, return receipt st

requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 3 1 day o f March, 2014:

Eric Policastro Royce West Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank West & Associates 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 3960 Dallas, T X 75202-2711 Dallas. I X 75208-1260 fax: 214.855.6808 fax: 214.941.1399 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H . Johnson Johnson Broome, PC 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, TX 75034 fax: 972.584.6054 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Pastazios Pizza

Lisa A. Songy Shannon Gracey Rat HIT & Miller Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, T X 75202 fax: 214.245.3097 Attorney for Defendant Kreka

RAMONA MARTINEZ M A T T H E W E. L A S T

D E F E N D A N T ISLAND H O S P I T A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T , INC.'S SECOND A M E N D E D ANSWER PAGE 6 Document #117603

DC-13-04564 AAMD . A M E N D E D A N S W E R - A M E N D E D OENERAI 384987

C A U S E NO. DC-13-04564 FILED

i 3 NOV 26 PH 2s 5 2

JANE DOE, § § IONS Plaintiff § IN T H E :

;¥AS

v. § ^SfCEPUTY*

§

AJREDIN " D A N N Y " DEARI, DRITAN § K R E K A , P A S T A Z I O S PIZZA, INC., § ISLAND H O S P I T A L I T Y § M A N A G E M E N T , INC., H Y A T T H O T E L S § CORPORATION, H Y A T T HOUSE § 193 R D JUDICIAL DISTRICT

F R A N C H I S I N G , L . L . C . , GRAND P R I X § FLOATING LESSEE, L L C , INK § A C Q U I S I T I O N , L L C , INK § A C Q U I S I T I O N II, L L C , I N K § A C Q U I S I T I O N III, L L C , INK LESSEE, § L L C , INK L E S S E E H O L D I N G , L L C , § C H A T H A M T R S H O L D I N G , INC., § C H A T H A M L O D G I N G , L.P., J E F F R E Y § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS H. F I S H E R , I N D I V I D U A L L Y , POST § ADDISON C I R C L E L I M I T E D § P A R T N E R S H I P , AND D O E S 1-25, § Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' SECOND A M E N D E D ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

N O W COME Defendants, POST ADDISON CIRCLE L I M I T E D PARTNERSHIP and

POST PROPERTIES, INC. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants") file this their

Second Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Petition, and would respectfully show the Court as

follows:

I. GENERAL DENIAL

Defendants, POST ADDISON CIRCLE L I M I T E D PARTNERSHIP and POST

PROPERTIES, INC., assert a general denial as authorized by Rule 9 2 o f the T E X A S R U L E S O F

CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff be required to prove the

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 1 1938033 08463.016 charges and allegations made against POST ADDISON CIRCLE L I M I T E D PARTNERSHIP

and POST PROPERTIES, INC. by a preponderance o f the evidence as is required by the

Constitution and Laws of the State of Texas.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants specifically plead that on the occasion i n question. Jane Doe failed to exercise

ordinary care for her own safety and, such failure constitutes negligence which was a proximate,

producing, contributing, or sole proximate cause of the alleged damages, i f any, Plaintiff alleges

to have suffered.

Defendants specifically plead that Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, or should

be reduced, due to the negligence and comparative responsibility of Jane Doe.

Defendants specifically plead that Plaintiffs alleged damages are the result of an

intervening, superseding, or new and independent cause for which these Defendants have no

responsibility.

Defendants specifically plead that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, i f any.

Defendants plead that any injuries, damages, or disabilities claimed or complained of by

Plaintiff are the result, in whole or i n part, of pre-existing conditions or disabilities.

Defendants specifically plead that pursuant to Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 4 1 . 0 1 0 5 , in

addition to any other limitation under law, recovery o f medical or health care expenses incurred

is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to § 18.091 of the T E X A S C I V I L P R A C T I C E & R E M E D I E S C O D E , to the extent that

the Plaintiff seeks recovery for loss o f earnings and/or loss of earning capacity, then the

Defendants would show that the Plaintiff must present evidence to prove the loss in the form of a

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 2 1938033 08463,016 net loss after reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability pursuant to any federal

income tax law.

Defendants invoke their statutory and common law rights to contribution, indemnity and/or

proportionate responsibility, including, but not limited to that under Chapters 32 and 33 of the Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code against all co-Defendants. In the unlikely event that one or more

Defendants is found liable or settles with Plaintiff, Defendants pray for judgment for contribution,

indemnity, offset, credit, and/or proportionate responsibility from any and all such co-Defendants.

Defendants specifically plead that Defendant Post Properties, Inc. can not be held liable

in the capacity that it has been sued.

Defendants further plead that they cannot be liable under the Texas Dram Shop Act as

they are not "providers" pursuant to T . A . B . C §2.03, 2.01.

Defendants plead that there can be no award o f exemplary damages against Defendants

because of the criminal acts o f another pursuant to § 41.005 o f the T E X A S C I V I L P R A C T I C E &

REMEDIES CODE.

By way of further affirmative defense, Defendants would show that the claims made against

them for exemplary and/or punitive damages are in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 3 and 19 of the Texas

Constitution, in that such claims made are arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Defendants'

right to due process of law and equal protection of law.

Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary

damages herein on the grounds that the imposition of punitive damages as sought by Plaintiff

would be fundamentally unfair and Defendants would show that no legal basis or facts are

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 3 1938033 08463.016 alleged that would allow punitive damages against Defendants herein; and i f not dismissed

Defendants request a bifurcated trial on this issue.

Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff for any amount of money whatsoever and

challenge the allegations of punitive damages as wholly unjustified and unconstitutional, and

further says that in any event, the recovery of exemplary damages herein is limited by law,

pursuant to Section 41.001, et. seq., as contained in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices &

Remedies Code.

III. CROSS-CLAIM

In her petition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ajredin "Danny" Deari ("Deari") and

Dritan Kreka ("Kreka") served her alcohol at Pastazio's Pizza and that subsequently, Deari

sexually assaulted Plaintiff and that Kreka aided and abetted Deari. Based on Plaintiffs

allegations, Defendants Cross-Claim against Defendants Ajredin "Danny" Deari and Dritan Kreka

for statutory and common law contribution, including, but not limited to, contribution under

Chapters 32 and 33 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.

In the unlikely event that Defendants are held liable, Defendants POST A D D I S O N

CIRCLE L I M I T E D PARTNERSHIP and POST PROPERTIES, INC. assert that they are entitled

to contribution from Deari and Kreka by reason of their negligence and/or intentional acts.

Furthermore, Defendants specifically assert that the negligence and/or intentional conduct of Deari

and Kreka was a sole and proximate cause or the producing cause of any damages to Plaintiff.

Finally, while Deari and Kreka are currently Defendants to the present suit, Defendants

request that the jury be allowed to assess a percentage of responsibility to Deari and Kreka

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 4 1938033 08463.016 pursuant, to TEX. Civ. PRAC. & R E M . C O D E ANN. § 33.003(4) i f they are not parties to this lawsuit

at the time of trial.

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, POST ADDISON CIRCLE

L I M I T E D PARTNERSHIP and POST PROPERTIES, INC. pray that Plaintiff recover nothing

of and from these Defendants, and that they receive all costs of Court and such other and further

relief, both at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.

State Bar No. 1 4 9 0 4 8 0 0 ZioH^Z^ Sarah L. Rogers State Bar No. 2 4 0 4 6 2 3 9 TH

7 0 0 N . Pearl, 25 Floor Dallas, Texas 7 5 2 0 1 Telephone: ( 2 1 4 ) 8 7 1 - 8 2 2 8 Telecopy: ( 2 1 4 ) 8 7 1 - 8 2 0 9 E-Mail: rnelson@thompsoncoe.com

ATTORNEYS FOR D E F E N D A N T S POST ADDISON C I R C L E L I M I T E D P A R T N E R S H I P AND P O S T P R O P E R T I E S , INC.

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 5 1938033 08463.016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies on the 25th day of November, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document been served on all known counsel of record by facsimile and/or certified mail.

Royce West

Eric Policastro Veretta Frazier Trey Crawford Nigel Redmond Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, LLP West & Associates, LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 3960 Dallas, Texas 75202 Dallas, Texas 75208-1260 214-855-6800 Attorneys for Plaintiff 214-855-6808 (Fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff Ramona Martinez

Dritan Kreka Cobb Martinez Woodward PLLC 5549 Big River Drive 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 The Colony, Texas 75056 Dallas, Texas 75201 Defendant 214-220-5200 214-220-5252 (Fax)

Samuel H . Johnson Attorney for Defendants, Hyatt House Johnson Broome, PC Franchising, L L C , Island Hospitality John S. Kenefick Management, Inc., Ink Acquisition, L L C , Jason M . Jung Ink Acquisition I I , L L C , Ink Acquisition I I I , 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 L L C , Ink Lessee, L L C , Ink Lessee Holding, Frisco, Texas 75074 L L C , Grand Prix Floating Lessee, L L C , 972-918-5274 Chatham Lodging, L P , Chatham TRS 972-584-6054 (Fax) Holding, Inc., Jeffrey H . Fisher, and Attorneys f o r Defendant, Ajredin "Danny" Hyatt Hotels Corporation Deari and Pastazios Pizza, Inc.

Sarah L . Rogers

DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 6 1938033 08463.016

CAUSE NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

VS. § §

AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI; DRITAN § KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; § ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- § MENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS § CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE § FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND PRIX § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, LP; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-25 § 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE

Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc. (“Defendant”) files this Motion to

Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe, as follows:

I. Background

1. Plaintiff has sued Defendant for, among other things, mental anguish and psychological-

related damages are a result of an alleged sexual assault.

2. In support of her claims, Plaintiff retained a psychologist as a testifying expert, Dr.

William Flynn.

3. Dr. Flynn was deposed on December 19, 2014. At the deposition, Dr. Flynn testified that

he conducted a psychological examination of Plaintiff, and that his opinions were based

upon and in reliance upon the examination. Dr. Flynn has produced records from the

psychological examination.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 1 Document #132535 4. On January 16, 2015, Defendant designated Dr. Lisa Clayton as a testifying expert, to

testify in response to Dr. Flynn. Dr. Clayton has requested that she, like Dr. Flynn, be

able to examine Plaintiff to develop her expert opinions.

5. On January 21, 2015, after a hearing on a Motion to Compel the Deposition of John

Harris, Plaintiff’s security expert, Defendant asked Plaintiff for dates on which Dr.

Clayton could examine Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel seemed opposed to the request, but

did not give a definitive answer.

6. After that date and after additional requests, Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to make

Plaintiff available for an examination by Dr. Clayton. Plaintiff is taking the position that

discovery closed on June, 9, 2014. Plaintiff’s position is inconsistent with the fact that

(a) Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Flynn examined Plaintiff in August 2014, after the alleged close

of discovery, (b) the Court has ruled that certain expert discovery and designation periods

are ongoing, given the circumstances of the case, including the deposition of Plaintiff’s

expert John Harris (now scheduled for March), (c) Defendant’s designation of Dr.

Clayton was not due until January 18, 2015, and (d) Plaintiff’s made a request in January

2015 under Rule 196 to inspect the hotel premises, and Plaintiff conducted that discovery

on February 4, 2015.

II. Arguments and Authorities

7. The court may order the mental examination of a party or person under the party’s

control if the movant shows good cause and any of the following:

a. The party’s mental condition is in controversy (Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(c)(1));

b. The party has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert (Tex. R. Civ. P.

204.1(c)(2)); or

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 2 Document #132535

c. The party has disclosed a psychologist’s records for possible use at trial (Tex. R.

Civ. P. 204.1(c)(2)).

8. Here, there is good cause for the Court to order the psychological examination of Plaintiff

because the examination is relevant to the case. Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749,

753 (Tex. 1988). Specifically:

a. Plaintiff has a claim in controversy for mental anguish;

b. Plaintiff has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert;

c. Plaintiff has disclosed psychology records for possible use at trial; and

d. Plaintiff’s testifying psychologist expert was afforded an opportunity to conduct a

mental examination and, thus, Plaintiff would have an unfair advantage and

Defendant would be prejudiced if Defendant’s expert did not have the same

opportunity as Plaintiff’s expert. It is not possible for Defendant to obtain the

information that would result from the examination through less intrusive means.

Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 753.

9. Plaintiff’s position that discovery is closed is inconsistent with the following:

(a) Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Flynn examined Plaintiff in August 2014, after the alleged close

of discovery,

(b) the Court has ruled that certain expert discovery and designation periods are ongoing,

given the circumstances of the case, including the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert John

Harris (now scheduled for March),

(c) Defendant’s designation of Dr. Clayton was not due until January 18, 2015, and

(d) Plaintiff’s made a request in January 2015 under Rule 196 to inspect the hotel

premises, and Plaintiff conducted that discovery on February 4, 2015. Defendant was

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 3 Document #132535

cooperative in facilitating the inspection and allowing the parties to conduct discovery

without court intervention, but Plaintiff is refusing to do the same.

For those reasons, among others, limited expert discovery is ongoing. Further, Plaintiff

should be estopped from arguing all discovery closed and/or waived that argument when

Plaintiff engaged in the above inconsistent acts.

III. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant requests that the Court grant this

Motion to Examine Plaintiff, order Plaintiff to be produced for a psychological examination

conducted by Dr. Lisa Clayton, and grant such further and additional relief to which Defendant

may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 220-5202 (direct phone) (214) 220-5252 (direct fax)

By: _____________________________________ RAMONA MARTINEZ Texas Bar No. 13144010 email: rmartinez@cobbmartinez.com DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: ddenton@cobbmartinez.com MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: mlast@cobbmartinez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 4 Document #132535

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference at which there was a substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented:

Certified to the 6th day of February, 2015 by

/s/ David S. Denton

RAMONA MARTINEZ DAVID S. DENTION MATTHEW E. LAST

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record by e-service, email, certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 6th day of February, 2015:

Eric Policastro Dritan Kreka Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 5549 Big River Drive 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 The Colony, TX 75056 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Defendant Kreka fax: 214.855.6808 Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H. Johnson Randy A. Nelson Johnson Broome, PC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 700 North Pearl Street Frisco, TX 75034 25th Floor – Plaza of the Americas fax: 972.584.6054 Dallas, TX 75201 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Attorney for Post Properties Pastazios Pizza

RAMONA MARTINEZ MATTHEW E. LAST

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 5 Document #132535

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 3/24/2015 9:03:39 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

Cause Number: DC-13-04564 JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

Plaintiff, § §

v. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT §

ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, § INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; § HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C.; § GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; § INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; POST ADDISION § CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; § PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; AJREDIN § “DANNY” DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; and § DOES 1-25, § §

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE

COMES NOW Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) and files this Response to Defendant

Island Hospitality Management, Inc.’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Motion”) and

would respectfully show this Court the following:

I.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSE

1. Defendant IHM seeks to have the Court issue an order requiring Plaintiff to

submit to an unspecified “psychological” examination with its untimely designated expert, Dr.

Lisa Clayton. Defendant IHM’s Motion must be denied because it does not comply with

multiple provisions set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.1. Defendant IHM’s Motion

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 1 of 9 was filed after the applicable discovery deadline and almost nine months after the deadline set

forth under Rule 204.1.

2. More importantly, Defendant IHM’s Motion fails to establish good cause as to

why Plaintiff should be subjected to a second mental examination when Defendant IHM

admittedly has the objective “raw data” it needs to provide to its untimely designated expert.

This accomplishes nothing, other than to needlessly subject Plaintiff to reliving the nightmare

that she encountered when she was raped at the age of eighteen.

3. Not only is Defendant IHM’s Motion untimely, it fails to specify the scope of the

requested “psychological” examination, how it is to be conducted, and how it would be any

different from the objective data Defendant IHM already has in its possession from the first

examination. By not even specifying the examination that Defendant IHM is requesting, the

Court cannot enter an order compliant with Rule 204.1(d). For these reasons, Defendant IHM’s

Motion must be denied.

II.

BACKGROUND

4. On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff was raped by Defendant Deari at the Hyatt House

Hotel and contracted the incurable sexually transmitted disease of herpes. The Hyatt House Hotel

is operated and managed by Defendant IHM. Plaintiff was eighteen years old at the time.

5. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Defendant IHM, Defendant Deari, and others

on April 24, 2013.1 In her Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of being raped and

given herpes, she suffered “extreme emotional distress, pain and suffering, and mental anguish as

the sexual assault is constantly replayed in her mind and the aftermath displayed on her body.” 2

1 Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Exhibit 1.

2 Id. ¶ 33.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 2 of 9

Plaintiff sought in her Original Petition recovery for “mental anguish incurred in the past and

future.”3 That claim has not changed since the day it was brought nearly two years ago.

6. On January 10, 2014 the Court entered its Standing Scheduling Order. 4 The

Scheduling Order closed discovery on June 9, 2014 and required Defendant IHM to designate its

experts by April 30, 2014. Defendant IHM’s deadline to designate its experts was then extended

to May 31, 2014 by agreement among the parties.5

7. On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff timely served its Rule 194.2(f) Expert Witness

Designations to Defendant IHM.6 In Plaintiff’s Expert Designations, Plaintiff disclosed Dr.

William E. Flynn, Ph.D.—a licensed forensic and clinical psychologist.7 On May 20, 2014,

Plaintiff informed Defendant IHM that Dr. Flynn was free to be deposed at a time that was

convenient for Defendants.8 Defendant IHM chose not to take Dr. Flynn’s deposition until

December 19, 2014—seven months after Plaintiff made Dr. Flynn available.

8. On September 30, 2014, the Court entered an order resetting the trial date to

March 24, 2015 because of the automatic stay invoked by Defendant Deari’s filing of

bankruptcy.9 This order did not extend the discovery deadline or any other deadlines in the case.

On February 24, 2015, the Court issued its Notice of Trial Announcement for July 7, 2015.10

The Notice explicitly states that the deadlines in the Court’s Standing Scheduling Order remain

in place and are not changed because the trial date has been extended. Id.

3 Id. ¶ 84. 4 Court’s January 10, 2014 Standing Scheduling Order, Exhibit 2. This Scheduling Order superseded the Scheduling Order entered by the Court on May 20, 2013. 5 Rule 11 Agreement Re: Expert Designations, Exhibit 3. 6 Plaintiff’s TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(f) Expert Witness Designations, Exhibit 4. 7 Id. at pp. 11-12. 8 See Correspondence from Trey Crawford (July 3, 2014), Exhibit 5. 9 Order Resetting Trial Date, Exhibit 6. 10 Notice of Trial Announcement, Exhibit 7.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 3 of 9 9. Defendant IHM did not disclose any expert in this case until January 16, 2015—

approximately 9 months after Dr. Flynn was designated and 8 months after the parties’ agreed

deadline. Even then, Defendant IHM did not file this Motion until February 6, 2015—nearly two

years after Defendant IHM was made aware of Plaintiff’s claim for mental anguish caused by the

rape.

10. Now, less than 4 months before trial, Defendant IHM seeks to put Plaintiff

through an unspecified “psychological” examination that undoubtedly will be highly-invasive

and duplicative of the “raw data” that was collected from her first examination. Defendant

IHM’s Motion states nothing of substance that will be gained by putting Plaintiff through such a

procedure. Defendant IHM’s Motion is untimely and lacks a showing of “good cause,” and thus

must be denied as a matter of law.

III.

LEGAL ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

11. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.1 does not grant Defendant IHM an automatic

right to obtain a physical or mental examination of Plaintiff. In order to conduct a mental

examination, a movant must establish a greater showing of need than to obtain other kinds of

discovery.11

12. Rule 204.1, by its express language, places an affirmative burden on the movant

to show the requested examination’s relevance and the movant must demonstrate “good cause”

for such an examination.12 In the absence of the movant establishing both prongs, a trial court

11 See In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (relying on Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (federal rule is substantially similar to the Rule 204.1)). 12 Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex. 1988).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 4 of 9 cannot order an examination pursuant to Rule 204.1.13 The movant’s request must also be timely

made in order for a court to consider it.

A. Defendant IHM’s Motion is Untimely.

13. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.1(a) requires a party seeking to compel a

mental examination of another party to file its application “no later than thirty days before the

end of the applicable discovery deadline.” When determining the “applicable discovery

deadline,” the Dallas Court of Appeals has held that requests for mental examinations are a form

of discovery under Rule 192.1.14

14. The Court’s Standing Scheduling Order set the applicable discovery deadline as

June 9, 2014. Pursuant to Rule 204.1(a), Defendant IHM was required to file its Motion no later

than May 10, 2014.

15. Defendant IHM has been aware of Plaintiff’s claim of mental anguish since the

day she filed her Original Petition—approximately two years ago. Plaintiff’s Original Petition

put Defendant IHM on notice that she was seeking damages for the significant mental and

emotional trauma caused by being raped and given herpes when she eighteen.

16. Moreover, Plaintiff designated Dr. William Flynn on April 30, 2014 to testify

about the “psychological, medical, behavioral, educational, physiological, vocational, and social

trauma” that a victim of a sexual assault can experience, including Plaintiff.15

17. Despite being on notice of Plaintiff’s mental anguish claim since the inception of

this lawsuit, Defendant IHM’s first formal request to examine Plaintiff was not until February 6,

2015. This is nearly two years after being made aware of the claim; almost a year after Dr. Flynn

13 Id. 14 See In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d at 866 (Tex. App. – Dallas ; see also In re Valero Energy Corp., 2011 WL 579154, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 18, 2011, no pet.) (court denied examination request one month after the discovery deadline); TEX. R. CIV. PRO. 192.1(g). 15 See Exhibit 4 at 11-12.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 5 of 9 was designated; and almost 9 months after Defendant IHM’s deadline to request an examination

under Rule 204.1. Defendant IHM has no excuse for this delay. For this reason alone, Defendant

IHM’s Motion should be denied.

B. Defendant IHM Has Not Satisfied its Burden to Prove Good Cause.

18. Even if the Court finds that Defendant IHM’s Motion was timely, Defendant

IHM’s Motion fails to establish good cause to obtain an order from the Court for a

“psychological” examination of Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant IHM’s Motion must be denied.16

19. The Texas Supreme Court acknowledges that mental medical examinations are

subject to a more rigorous standard due to their sensitive nature.17 Under Rule 204.1, it is the

movant’s burden to affirmatively show “good cause” to obtain a medical examination.18 “Good

cause” requires an affirmative showing of three things: (1) the examination is relevant to issues

that are genuinely in controversy in the case; (2) a reasonable nexus exists between the condition

in controversy and the examination sought; and (3) it is not possible to obtain the desired

information through means that are less intrusive than a compelled examination.19

20. These requirements may not be met with “conclusory allegations” in the movant’s

pleading.20 Moreover, “good cause” is not presumed merely because Plaintiff has retained a

psychologist to testify as an expert regarding Plaintiff’s mental condition.21 Texas courts have

repeatedly refused to permit medical examinations when good cause is not shown.22 Here,

Defendant IHM has failed to show good cause with any evidence to meet its burden.

16 Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 751-52 (Tex. 1988) (a movant’s showing of good cause is mandatory). 17 Id. at 752 (“Plaintiffs should not be subjected to public revelations of the most personal aspects of their private lives just because they seek compensation for mental anguish associated with an injury.”). 18 TEX. R. CIV. P. 204.1(a). 19 Id. at 506-07. 20 In re Click, 442 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.). 21 In re Transwestern Pub. Co., L.L.C., 96 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding). 22 See In re Dallas Group of Am., Inc., 434 S.W.3d 647, 648 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.); In re Bell Hot Shot Co., 2014 WL 260116, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 9, 2014, no pet.) (The trial court

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 6 of 9

1. Defendant IHM already has the information that it seeks.

21. Defendant IHM cannot establish good cause because it has not shown that it

cannot obtain the desired information through a less intrusive means. Plaintiff has already

undergone a thorough mental health examination focusing on the sexual assault and the impact

on her overall well-being before and after the assault.

22. Plaintiff’s psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, administered four separate objective

tests to Plaintiff: 1) the Clinically-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV, the gold standard in

PTSD assessment; 2) a Personality Assessment Inventory, an objective inventory of adult

personality that assesses psychopathological syndromes and provides information relevant for

clinical diagnosis, treatment planning, and screening for psychopathology; 3) the Structured

Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, a diagnostic exam used to determine DSM-IV

Axis I disorders (mental disorders); and 4) the Beck Depression Inventory I-II, one of the most

commonly used instruments for measuring severity of depression.

23. The results of these tests generate “raw data” which is then reviewed and

analyzed by the medical professional. All of the “raw data” from these standardized tests have

been provided to Defendant IHM to conduct its own analysis.23 In re Transwestern explicitly

states that “‘good cause’ is not assumed merely because a psychologist has been appointed to

testify as an expert regarding the subject's mental condition.”24

24. There is no added benefit of having Plaintiff fill out the examination booklets a

second time when the raw data is already available by less intrusive means. Defendant IHM has

the burden of showing the Court that “it is not possible to obtain the desired information through

did not abuse its discretion by determining that the relators have not shown good cause for an independent psychological evaluation); In re Click, 442 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.) (no good cause). 23 See Correspondence between David Denton and Trey Crawford, Exhibit 8. 24 96 S.W.3d at 506.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 7 of 9 means that are less intrusive than a compelled exam.”25 Defendant IHM’s conclusory assertion

that there is good cause is legally irrelevant. They must provide evidence making a showing of

“good cause.” No such showing has been made. Thus, the Court must deny the Motion.26

2. Defendant IHM fails to establish the required nexus between the mental examination sought and the condition in controversy.

25. Defendant IHM’s Motion lacks any specificity as to the mental examination it is

asking the Court to Order. Defendant IHM’s Motion fails to specify the scope of the requested

examination of Plaintiff, how it is to be conducted, and how it would be any different from the

objective raw data Defendant IHM already has from the first examination.

26. By not specifying the examination that Defendant IHM is requesting, the Court

cannot enter an order that would be compliant with the specificity requirements set forth in Rule

204.1(d). Thus, Defendant IHM has failed to make a showing that there is “a reasonable nexus

between the condition in controversy and the examination sought.”27 Without such a showing,

“good cause” cannot be established as a matter of law.

27. Allowing Defendant IHM to conduct a second examination of Plaintiff would be

duplicative and invasive. Given the traumatic event that took place and the understandable

anxiety associated with discussing or “reliving” such an event, a mental examination would be

overly intrusive to Plaintiff and provide no substantive benefit. In light of Defendant IHM’s

failure to assert and prove good cause sufficient for a Rule 204.1 motion to compel, Defendant

IHM’s Motion must be denied.

25 See In re Click, 442 S.W.3d at 491. 26 In re Caballero, 36 S.W.3d 143, 145 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (trial court abused its discretion in ordering medical examination after good cause was not established). 27 See In re Click, 442 S.W.3d at 491.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 8 of 9

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff respectfully prays that this

Court deny Defendant IHM’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe in its entirety, and

respectfully prays for all relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may prove herself to be

justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

ROYCE WEST G. MICHAEL GRUBER State Bar No. 21206800 State Bar No. 08555400 royce.w@westllp.com mgruber@ghjhlaw.com VERETTA FRAZIER TREY CRAWFORD State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No. 24059623 veretta.f@westllp.com tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com NIGEL REDMOND BRIAN E. MASON State Bar No. 24058852 State Bar No. 24079906 nigel.r@westllp.com bmason@ghjhlaw.com WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP P.O. Box 3960 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75208-1260 Dallas, Texas 75202 Ofc.: (214) 941-1881 214.855.6800 (main) Fax: (214) 941-1399 214.855.6808 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served—in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 21, 21a—on March 24, 2015 to all counsel of record.

_________________________________

Trey Crawford

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT IHM’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF Page 9 of 9

Cause Number:

JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTRICT C01)4T, 471, 4°

Plaintiff,

POT

v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-25,

Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

Plaintiff JANE DOE1 ("Plaintiff') file Plaintiff's Original Petition ("Petition") against

Defendants AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.;

ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; and

DOES 1-25 (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"), and for causes of action

respectfully shows this Court as follows:

I.

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Pursuant to TEx. R. Civ. P. 190.1, 190.3, Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery

under a Level 2 Discovery Control Plan.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Collin County, Texas.

Due to the extremely personal and sensitive nature of this lawsuit, Plaintiff is proceeding under the pseudonym of "Jane Doe"; however, Defendants have full knowledge of Plaintiff's identity due to Defendants' involvement in the underlying acts and omissions that form the basis of this Petition. To the extent that Defendants or Defendants' counsel are genuinely unaware of Plaintiff's identity (which would likely be impossible due to criminal proceedings against at least one Defendant in Dallas County, Texas, Case No. F1111106), Plaintiff's counsel is happy to state Plaintiff's identity to this Court and Defendants' counsel in papers that are (1) filed under seal with this Court, and/or (2) not filed with this Court and, thus, not subject to public inspection.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 OF 19 3. Defendant AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI (hereinafter, "Deari") is a natural

person who resides and may be served with service of process—at 15750 Spectrum #2211,

Addison, Texas 75001.

4. Defendant DRITAN KREKA (hereinafter, "Kreka") is a natural person who

resides—and may be served with service of process at 5549 Big River Drive, The Colony,

Texas 75056.

5. Defendant PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC. (hereinafter, "Pastazios") is a Texas

corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas. Pastazios may

be served with service of process by serving its registered agent, Ajredin Deari, located at 1416

Tree Farm Drive, Plano, Texas 75093.

6. Defendant ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC. (hereinafter,

"Island Hospitality") is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Palm Beach,

Florida. Island Hospitality may be served with service of process by serving its registered agent,

C T Corporation System, located at 350 N. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

7. Defendant HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION (hereinafter, "Hyatt") is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Hyatt may be

served with service of process by serving its registered agent, United States Corporation Co.,

located at 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

8. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the true identities and

residences of Defendants JOHN DOE 1-25, respectively, are currently unknown to Plaintiff at

this time. Plaintiff shall proceed with due diligence to discover the identities of Defendants

JOHN DOE 1-25, respectively and, after said Defendants' true identities have been discovered,

will amend this Petition accordingly.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 19 9. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that, at all material times, all

Defendants were the agents, servants, employees, partners, authorized agents and/or joint

venturers of every other Defendant and the acts of each Defendant were within the course and

scope of the agency, employment, partnership, and/or joint venture such that each Defendant is

jointly and severally liable for the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

III.

JURISDICTION

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the amount in

controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional requirements.

11. In accordance with TEx. R. Civ. P. 47, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in excess of

$1,000,000.00 due to Defendants' tortious conduct.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka

because said Defendants (1) are individuals and residents of the State of Texas, (2) transact

business within the State of Texas, (3) maintain continuous and systematic contacts with the

State of Texas, (4) purposefully avails themselves to the laws of the State of Texas, and (5) a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Texas and

involved Defendant Dean and Defendant Kreka.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Pastazios because said

Defendant (1) is a Texas corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Texas, (2)

transacts business within the State of Texas, (3) maintains continuous and systematic contacts

with the State of Texas, (4) purposefully avails itself to the laws of the State of Texas, and (5) a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Texas and

involved Defendant Pastazios.

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Island Hospitality because (1)

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 19 it transacts business within the State of Texas, (2) it has continuous and systematic contacts with

the State of Texas, (3) it maintains multiple offices in Texas, owns property in Texas, and

maintains bank accounts (used for the purpose of transacting business within the State of Texas

and elsewhere) within the State of Texas, (4) it purposefully avails itself to the laws of the State

of Texas, and (5) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims

occurred in Texas and involved Defendant Island Hospitality.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hyatt because (1) it transacts

business within the State of Texas, (2) it has continuous and systematic contacts with the State of

Texas, (3) it maintains multiple offices and bank accounts (used for the purpose of transacting

business within the State of Texas and elsewhere) within the State of Texas, (4) it purposefully

avails itself to the laws of the State of Texas, and (5) a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Texas and involved Defendant Hyatt.

16. Removal of this case to a federal court is inappropriate and statutorily

unauthorized because (1) complete diversity of parties is lacking, (2) at least one Defendant is a

forum-state defendant by virtue of its Texas incorporation and/or principal place of business

being in Texas, and (3) Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question, federal cause of action, or

alleged facts that would give rise to a federal question or federal cause of action; therefore, any

attempt to remove this case to a federal court is frivolous and gives rise to sanctionable conduct.

IV. VENUE

17. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a), venue is proper in Dallas

County, Texas because (1) all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiff's claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas, and (2) some or all of the Defendants

resided in Dallas County, Texas at the time Plaintiff's causes of action accrued.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 OF 19 18. Pursuant to TEx. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.005, because venue is proper in

Dallas County, Texas against at least one Defendant, venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas as

to all Defendants.

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19. In early 2011, Plaintiff was 18 years old and a recent graduate from high school.

Plaintiff excelled in school academically, graduating as the valedictorian of her class.

20. Like many young adults, Plaintiff was in search of an entry-level job at a local

business in order to earn disposable income and garner working experience. During her search,

Plaintiff was introduced to Defendant Dead and Defendant Kreka. Plaintiff was told that Deari

and Kreka were the owners of two local bar/restaurants, and would be willing to meet with her to

discuss potential employment opportunities.

21. On or about April 26, 2011, Plaintiff met Deari and Kreka at a restaurant in

Dallas, Texas. Deari asked Plaintiff how old she was and Plaintiff informed both men that she

was 18 years old. At the time, Defendant Deari was approximately 49 years old and Defendant

Kreka was approximately 33 years old. The two Defendants subsequently tried to order Plaintiff

an alcoholic beverage; however, the restaurant's server refused to bring the beverage because

Plaintiff was underage.

22. Undeterred, the two Defendants decided that it would be easiest to order Plaintiff

beverages at "Pastazios's Pizza" in Addison, Texas. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges

that "Pastazios's Pizza" is the assumed name of Defendant Pastazios and, additionally, the alter

ego of Defendant Deari who holds himself out to the public and Texas Secretary of State as the

registered agent, director, and president of Pastazios.

23. As planned, Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka convinced Plaintiff to drive to

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 or 19

Pastazios. Prior to their arrival, Defendants purchased hard liquor from a store with the intention

of serving the alcohol to Plaintiff.

24. Upon arrival at Pastazios, Defendants Kreka, Deari, and Pastazios (through its

employees, director, and president) began serving, selling, retrieving, and otherwise giving

Plaintiff multiple "shots" of hard liquor and servings of beer. Defendants repeatedly and

aggressively pressured Plaintiff into consuming—and Plaintiff, indeed, consumed—these

beverages despite Defendants' knowledge that Plaintiff was not of the legal age to drink. Just as

Defendants Deari, Kreka, and Pastazios planned, Plaintiff became intoxicated and she was, in

fact, obviously intoxicated.

25. After Plaintiff had consumed multiple shots of hard liquor and servings of beer

that Defendants served, sold, retrieved, and otherwise gave to Plaintiff, Deari and Kreka decided

that their next stop should be a local adult entertainment dance club. Deari retrieved his vehicle

from Pastazios's parking lot and told Kreka and Plaintiff to get into the vehicle. Kreka moved

into the driver's seat and Plaintiff, who was highly intoxicated, sat in the back of the vehicle.

Plaintiff then lost consciousness.

26. Plaintiff's next memory is vomiting in a gas station parking lot before losing

consciousness again. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff awoke in a hotel room located 4900 Edwin

Lewis Drive, Addison, Texas 75001—a premise that is owned, operated, and otherwise

possessed by Island Hospitality and Hyatt (hereinafter, "the Premises Defendants")—wherein

she had been involuntarily disrobed and was actively being raped by Defendant Deari.

27. Plaintiff repeatedly insisted that Defendant Deari stop the attack, but he did not. It

was only after Plaintiff made multiple demands for Defendant Deari to stop did the sexual

assault eventually end. Fearful of another attack, Plaintiff locked herself in the bathroom.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 OF 19 28. While still in the hotel room, Defendant Deari called Defendant Kreka on the

telephone and told him that Plaintiff was "really freaking out, dude", and asked for Kreka to

retrieve him from the Premises Defendants' property. With the knowledge that a sexual assault

had just occurred (one in which Defendant Kreka conspired to commit, facilitated, aided, and

abetted), Kreka retrieved Deari from the crime scene (unimpeded by the Premises Defendants)

thereby assisting Deari's evasion of law enforcement.

29. Plaintiff alleges that the Premises Defendants knew, or reasonably should have

known, of the reasonably foreseeable, unreasonable risks of harm from criminal activity at its

premises to Plaintiff taking into account the history, frequency, proximity, regularity, publicity,

and similarity of criminal conduct on or near the Premises Defendants' property. The Premises

Defendants allowed Defendant Deari and Defendant Kreka to reserve a room at its hotel, enter it

with an unconscious 18 year-old woman, rape her, and come and go from its property in an

unimpeded fashion such that Defendants could evade a police investigation without resistance.

30. After the attack on Plaintiff ceased and Deari and Kreka left the Premises

Defendants' property, a friend of Plaintiff's arrived at the hotel to help. After learning what

happened, the friend immediately notified the Addison Police Department. While investigating

the crime scene, Defendant Deari came back to the hotel (presumably to retrieve the underwear

he left, which was taken into evidence by the police department), and Deari was arrested,

charged with the crime of sexual assault, indicted, and has a criminal trial pending. At this point

in time, Defendant Kreka has not been charged for the crimes he aided, abetted, facilitated, and

conspired to commit.

31. Plaintiff was immediately transmitted to the hospital and underwent a series of

examinations, tests, and administered massive quantities of treatments for the injuries she

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 OF 19 incurred during the rape.

32. Within a matter of days following the sexual assault, Plaintiff went back to the

hospital after she experienced severe pain in her pubic region. Upon information and belief, the

doctors informed Plaintiff that she had contracted herpes, an incurable sexually-transmitted

disease, during the rape. The doctors conducted a blood test on Plaintiff wherein the specific

strand of herpes was identified. It has recently been discovered that the results of a mandatory

blood/sexually-transmitted disease test ordered by the Court in "The State of Texas v. Danny

Demi" has confirmed that Plaintiff's attacker, (who did not utilize latex contraception during the

attack), Defendant Deari, is infected with the same derivation of the herpes virus.

33. As a proximate result of the criminal, despicable, extreme, outrageous, and

tortious acts of Defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has foreseeably suffered through, and will

continue to suffer through, extreme emotional distress, pain and suffering, and mental anguish as

the sexual assault is constantly replayed in her mind and the aftermath displayed on her body.

Plaintiff is forced to shoulder the burden of Defendants' criminal and tortious acts for the rest of

her life which, according to the federal government's "National Vital Statistics Reports", is

expected to be another 61.6 years.2 Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial

damages proximately caused by Defendants.

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1: ASSAULT — THREAT OF BODILY INJURY

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 33 of Plaintiff's Petition.

35. On or about April 26, 2011, Defendants intentionally or knowingly threatened

2See U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS Vol. 61, No.3, September 24, 2012 at 20.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8 OF 19

Plaintiff with imminent bodily injury. Defendants' threat of imminent bodily injury caused

Plaintiff to be apprehensive, which was a foreseeable result of Defendants' actions.

36. Each and every Defendant is liable for the threat of bodily injury committed

against Plaintiff because each and every Defendant participated in the tortious act themselves or,

alternatively, assisted the tortious act against Plaintiff in furtherance of the civil conspiracy to do

so or, alternatively, aided and abetted each other to allow the ultimate threat of bodily injury

against Plaintiff to take place.

37. Defendants' threat of imminent bodily injury to Plaintiff was a cause of the

damages alleged herein.

COUNT 2: ASSAULT (BATTERY) —BODILY INJURY AND OFFENSIVE CONTACT

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 37 of Plaintiff's Petition.

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the statutory

language of TEx. PENAL CODE § 22.011 describing the felony of "Sexual Assault". Plaintiff

alleges that Plaintiff was the victim of the crime, Sexual Assault, which Defendants committed

against Plaintiff (as described in TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011(a),(b),(0) on or about April 26,

2011, and that the sexual assault has caused Plaintiff's damages alleged herein.

40. Defendants intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly made physical contact

with Plaintiff's person causing bodily injury—that is, physical pain, illness, or impairments of

Plaintiff's physical condition—and Plaintiff did not, and could not, consent to the harmful

physical contact.

41. Alternatively, Defendants intentionally or knowingly caused to be made physical

contact with Plaintiff when Defendants knew, or reasonably should have believed, that Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9 OF 19 would regard the contact as offensive or provocative. Indeed, said physical contact was

offensive, provocative, and committed by Defendants despite never having consent from

Plaintiff.

42. As a causal result of Defendants' battery of Plaintiff's person, Plaintiff suffered

immediate, consequential, and subsequent injuries—including pain, illness, and physical

impairment that were foreseeable to Defendants. The assault committed by Defendants on

Plaintiff's person was a cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

43. Each and every Defendant is liable for the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual

assault of which Plaintiff is a victim because each and every Defendant participated in the

tortious and felonious acts themselves or, alternatively, assisted the crimes, assault, battery, and

sexual assault against Plaintiff in furtherance of the civil conspiracy to do so or, alternatively,

aided and abetted the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual assault by providing intoxicating

substances to Plaintiff, a mode of transportation for the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual

assault to occur, and/or a location—which was foreseeably unsafe and unreasonably

dangerous for the crimes, assault, battery, and sexual assault to take place.

44. In addition to committing, conspiring to commit, or aiding and abetting assault,

battery, and/or sexual assault against Plaintiff, the investigation is still ongoing as to whether or

not Defendants individually—or collectively in furtherance of a conspiracy and/or whilst aiding

and abetting each other should be charged with, criminally prosecuted for, and civilly held

liable for the felony of "Aggravated Sexual Assault", as defined by TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021

and fully incorporated by reference herein.

COUNT 3: SEXUAL ASSAULT—TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 10 OF 19 through 44 of Plaintiff's Petition.

COUNT 4: FALSE IMPRISONMENT

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 45 of Plaintiffs Petition.

47. Without legal authority or justification, Defendants willfully detained or

participated in the detainment of Plaintiff without Plaintiffs consent. Defendants accomplished

the unlawful detainment of Plaintiff with violence, threats that were calculated to inspire—and,

in fact, inspired—a reasonable fear of injury to Plaintiff, intoxicating substances, and/or other

means that were intended to cause—and, in fact, caused—Plaintiff to be unable to exercise her

will in going anywhere she was lawfully allowed to go. Said false imprisonment took place at the

hotel owned and operated by the Premises Defendants.

48. The false imprisonment committed by Defendants against Plaintiff was a

proximate cause of the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

COUNT 5: NEGLIGENCE

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19 through 48

of Plaintiff's Original Petition.

50. Defendants owed Plaintiff legal duties that Defendants breached thereby

proximately causing Plaintiffs damages.

51. For example, Defendants Pastazios and Deari—as the individual who holds

himself out as the registered agent, director, and president of Pastazios—had a duty to control its

employees, a duty to supervise its employee's activities, a duty to prevent an employee from

causing an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff, a duty to use ordinary care in hiring and

retaining its employees, a duty to not place Plaintiff in harm's way of foreseeable criminal

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 11 OF 19 activity, and a duty to treat Plaintiff in a manner that would not subject her to physical or mental

injury. Said Defendants breached those duties it owed Plaintiff by, amongst other things,

negligently providing intoxicating substances to Plaintiff and placing here in harm's way.

Defendant Kreka, by way of example, owed Plaintiff a legal duty to protect Plaintiff from harm

when the danger was caused, in part, by Kreka and the harm was apparent to Kreka such that he

was in a position to protect Plaintiff from the harm, a duty to not place Plaintiff in harm's way of

foreseeable criminal activity, a duty to not operate a vehicle when legally intoxicated thereby

placing Plaintiff in danger and, ultimately, causing her to arrive at the location where she was

sexually assaulted, and a duty to treat Plaintiff in a manner that would not subject her to physical

or mental injury. Defendant Kreka breached each and every one of these duties as detailed in this

Petition. The Premises Defendants, for example, owed Plaintiff a duty to use ordinary care in

maintaining its premises in a safe condition and to inspect the premises to ensure the safety of its

occupants, a duty to protect Plaintiff against unreasonable and foreseeable risks of harm from the

criminal acts of third parties due to the Premises Defendants' status (as landowner) and ability to

control the security and safety of the premises, a duty not to injure Plaintiff in a willful, wanton,

or grossly negligent manner or allow another to do so on its premises when it knew, or

reasonably should have known, such conduct would take place, a duty to make safe conditions

on its property in order to protect Plaintiff, and a duty to treat Plaintiff in a manner that would

not subject her to physical or mental injury. As the owner and operator of the location where

Plaintiff was sexually assaulted, falsely imprisoned, and subjected to extreme and outrageous

intentional infliction of emotional distress, there can be no dispute that the Premises Defendants

breached each and every one of the duties it owed Plaintiff.

52. Defendants breached the duties it owed to Plaintiff (as set forth in this Petition)

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 12 OF 19 thereby proximately causing Plaintiff's injuries and the damages alleged herein.

COUNT 6: PREMISES LIABILITY

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 52 of Plaintiff's Petition.

54. Plaintiff's cause of action for Premises Liability is alleged against the Premises

Defendants, only. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and amend this cause of action.

55. The Premises Defendants facilitated the assault and tortious conduct on Plaintiff

through the use or misuse of the property—located at 4900 Edwin Lewis Drive, Addison, Texas

75001—owned, operated, controlled by, franchised by, licensed by, and/or otherwise possessed

by the Premises Defendants.

56. The Premises Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care in

protecting Plaintiff from unreasonable and reasonably foreseeable risks of harm (including

criminal activity at its premises considering the history, frequency, proximity, regularity,

publicity, and similarity of criminal conduct on or near the Premises Defendants' property)

especially in light of the Premises Defendants' status as landowner and ability to control the

security and safety of the premise. The Premises Defendants had a duty to inspect and make safe

any dangerous conditions or situations on its property or give Plaintiff an adequate warning of

the dangerous conditions or situations.

57. The Premises Defendants breached the legal duties it owed Plaintiff thereby

proximately causing Plaintiff's damages alleged herein.

COUNT 7: DRAM SHOP LIABILITY

58. Plaintiff's cause of action for Dram Shop Liability is alleged against Defendant

Deari—in his capacity as registered agent, director, and president of Pastazios—and Pastazios,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 13 OF 19 only. As used within Section VI(Count 8) of Plaintiff's Original Petition, said Defendants shall

be referred to as the "Dram Shop Defendants." Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and

amend this cause of action.

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 58 of Plaintiff's Petition.

60. On or about April 26, 2011, the Dram Shop Defendants held Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission licenses for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages and did, in fact, sell

or serve multiple alcoholic beverages to Plaintiff who, at the time, was an 18 year-old "adult

recipient" of said beverages.

61. To the extent that the Dram Shop Defendants did not hold Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission licenses for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages on or about April

26, 2011, Plaintiff alternatively alleges that the Dram Shop Defendants did not have said licenses

yet still sold Plaintiff, an 18 year-old "adult receipt", alcoholic beverages.

62. After the Dram Shop Defendants provided the alcoholic beverages to Plaintiff, it

was apparent, or readily became apparent, to the Dram Shop Defendants that Plaintiff was

obviously intoxicated.

63. Plaintiff's intoxication—as a result of Defendants' actions was one of the

proximate causes of the injuries incurred and the damages alleged by Plaintiff herein.

COUNT 8: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [ALTERNATIVE REMEDY]

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 63 of Plaintiff's Petition.

65. As an alternative remedy to Plaintiff's claims detailed in this Petition at Section

(VI)(Count 1-Count? ), Plaintiff alleges that no alternative cause of action would provide

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 14 OF 19

Plaintiff with a remedy for the severe emotional distress incurred by Plaintiff which was

proximately caused by Defendants' tortious conduct.

66. Plaintiff an individual—was and is a victim of Defendants' intentional or

reckless actions that were calculated to cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

67. Defendants' intentional or reckless actions towards Plaintiff were extreme and

outrageous and, ultimately, proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

COUNT 9: PARTICIPATORY LIABILITY—AIDING AND ABETTING AND CONCERT OF ACTION

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 67 of Plaintiff's Petition.

69. Among the Defendants was a primary actor/actors who committed an underlying

tort, or torts, against Plaintiff. Defendants had knowledge that the primary actor's conduct

constituted a tort and Defendants gave the primary actor assistance, substantial assistance, and/or

encouragement to commit the tort against Plaintiff. Defendants' assistance, substantial

assistance, and/or encouragement was a substantial factor in causing the tort to be completed and

a substantial factor in the damages incurred by Plaintiff as alleged herein.

70. Alternatively, Defendants' own conduct—separate and apart from the primary

actor was a breach of duty to Plaintiff and a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries.

71. Due to Defendants' joint assistance, encouragement, aiding and abetting, and/or

concert of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should be held jointly and severally

responsible for the whole of damages incurred by Plaintiff.

COUNT 10: PARTICIPATORY LIABILITY—CONSPIRACY

72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 71 of Plaintiff's Petition.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 15 OF 19 73. As fully described in this Petition, Defendants are, and were, individuals or

individual entities that acted together as a combination of two or more individuals or entities.

74. Throughout Defendants' interactions with Plaintiff on or about April 26, 2011, the

object of Defendants' combination was to accomplish an unlawful purpose and/or a lawful

purpose by unlawful means.

75. Defendants had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action of its

conspiracy, and at least one Defendant committed an unlawful, overt act in furtherance of

Defendants' object or course of action.

76. Plaintiff suffered the damages alleged herein as a proximate result of Defendants'

wrongful act or acts.

COUNT 11: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 76 of Plaintiff's Original Petition.

78. Defendants' tortious conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent.

79. Defendants' malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent was carried out by

Defendants personally, through Defendants' authorized agents, managers, officers, directors,

vice-principals, and/or principals of the Defendants who were acting within the course and scope

of their agency, employment, partnership, and/or joint venture. Alternatively, Defendants'

malicious, fraudulent, and/or grossly negligent conduct was subsequently approved by or ratified

by Defendants.

80. Defendants intentionally breached the legal duties it owed Plaintiff such that it

could take undue advantage of Plaintiff and/or otherwise maliciously treat Plaintiff. The acts or

omissions of Defendants, when viewed objectively from the Defendants' standpoint, involved an

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 16 OF 19 extreme degree of risk when considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to

Plaintiff and others.

81. Additionally, Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk to Plaintiff

and others but proceeded anyway with a conscience indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare

of Plaintiff and others.

82. Defendants' conduct was performed and/or designed with a specific intent to

cause substantial injury or harm to Plaintiff. As alleged fully herein, Defendants' conduct is an

example of why punitive damages exist, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' conduct rises to

the level warranting the imposition of exemplary damages against Defendants at trial of this

matter.

VII. DAMAGES

83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 19

through 82 of Plaintiff's Petition.

84. Plaintiff has incurred significant damages due to Defendants' criminal, tortious,

and outrageous conduct. Plaintiff seeks all losses sustained as a natural, probable, foreseeable,

and/or proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, including:

a. General damages;

b. Actual damages;

c. Physical pain and suffering incurred in the past and future;

d. Mental anguish incurred in the past and future;

e. Disfigurement incurred in the past and future;

f. Physical impairment incurred in the past and future;

g. Medical expenses incurred in the past and future;

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 17 OF 19

h. Loss of earning capacity incurred in the past and future;

i. Lost wages incurred in the past and future;

j. All reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees that Plaintiff is forced to incur

pursuant to Texas common law and equity;

k. Exemplary damages;

1. Costs of court;

m. Pre judgment interest;

n. Post-judgment interest; and

o. All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

VIII.

DEMAND FOR JURY

85. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee.

IX.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

86. Under TEx. R. CIV. P. 194, Plaintiff hereby makes the demand that Defendants

disclose, within the timeframe provided by the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the

information and material described in TEx. R. Civ. P. 194.2(a)-(1).

X. PRAYER

87. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be

cited to appear and answer herein. Plaintiff further prays that, upon trial by jury, she have

judgment against Defendants for the damages enumerated herein, as well as all other relief, in

law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may show herself to be justly entitled.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 18 OF 19

Respectfully submitted,

G. MICHAE GRUBER State Bar No. 08555400 mgruber@ghjhlaw.com ERIC POLICASTRO State Bar No. 24068809 epolicastro@ghjhlaw.com TREY H. CRAWFORD State Bar No. 24059623 tcrawford@ghjhlaw.corn

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75202 214.855.6800 (main) 214.855.6808 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 19 OF 19

000173

ALL

CAUSE NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE IN THE DISTRICT COURT

VS.

AJRF,DIN "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- MENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND PRIX DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; CHATHAM LODGING, LP; JEFFREY H. FISHER, Individually; POST PROPERTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-25 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

193"

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT'S STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER

In accordance with Rules 166, 190 and 192, of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TRCP), the Court issues the following Order to control the scheduling of this cause.

TRIAL SETTING, AMENDMENT OF DATES & DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

This case will be ready and is set for jury trial on July 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m: the "Trial Setting." Any reset or continuance of the Trial Setting will not alter any deadline in this Order or established by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise provided by Order, or by the agreement of the parties, in accordance with TRCP 11. When no announcement is made for Plaintiff(s) or the Plaintiff(s) fail to appear, the Court may dismiss this case for want of prosecution, pursuant to: (i) Rule 165a TRCP; (ii) the Dallas County Local Civil Rules; and/or (iii) the Court's inherent power to dismiss cases not diligently prosecuted, with a hearing on dismissal for want of prosecution to be held at the time of trial.

DEADLINES & TIMELINES

The following pre-trial matters will be completed by the following dates (in the event that one of these dates falls on a weekend or holiday, the date will be the first preceding date, which is not a weekend or a holiday):

1. Deadline for filing Amended Pleadings Asserting New Claims or Defenses. — 120 days before the Trial Setting, which is March 31, 2014. (Amended pleadings responsive to

Order Page 1 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 2 of 10

timely filed pleadings under this scheduling order may be filed after the deadline for amended pleadings, if filed within two (2) weeks after the pleading to which they respond.)

2. Deadline to Designate Responsible Third Parties. — 120 days before the Trial Setting, which is March 31, 2014. Defendants shall file any motions for leave to designate responsible third parties, under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.004 by this date.

3. Deadline to Join Additional Parties. — 120 days before the Trial Setting, which is March 31, 2014. No additional parties may be joined after this date, except on motion for leave showing good cause. This paragraph does not otherwise alter the requirements of Rule 38. This paragraph does not limit a claimant's ability to join a person designated as a responsible third parties, as provided for under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.004(e). The party joining an additional party shall serve a copy of this Order on the new party concurrently with the pleading joining that party.

4. Deadline for any Party seeking affirmative relief to designate experts as per Tex. R. Civ. P. 1942(1) — 120 days before the Trial Setting, which is March 31, 2014.

5. Deadline for any Party opposing affirmative relief to designate experts as per Tex. R. Civ. P. 1942(1) — 90 days before the Trial Setting, which is April 30, 2014.

6. Deadline for Designation of Rebuttal Experts and Provide Reports as per Tex. R. Civ. P. 1942(1) — 85 days before the Trial Setting, which is May 5, 2014. The Parties shall designate rebuttal experts from whom they intend to elicit expert opinion testimony regarding matters not reasonably anticipated prior to that Party's original expert designation deadline.

7. Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: — 60 days before the Trial Setting, which is May 30, 2014. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than this date.

8. Deadline to File No-Evidence Motions. — 60 days before the Trial Setting, which is May 30, 2014. All no-evidence motions, as provided for by Rule 166a(i), shall be filed by this date. No such Motion shall be heard before the close of the discovery period.

9. Discovery Closes. — 50 days before the Trial Setting, which is June 9, 2014. All depositions shall be completed by this date and all written discovery request shall be served so that responses are due no later than this date. Rule 193.5 governs amended or supplemental responses; however, it is presumed that an amended or supplemental response made after this date was not made reasonably promptly.

10. Deadline to File Motion to Compel. — 46 days before the Trial Setting, which is June 13, 2014. Any motion to compel responses to discovery (other than relating to factual matters arising after the end of fact discovery) must be filed no later than this date, except for motions for sanctions as provided for by Rule 193.6.

11. Deadline to File Daubert/Robinson Motions Challenging Opinion Testimony. — 21 days after said expert is deposed, or if the expert is not deposed, 14 days after the end of the

Order Page 2 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 3 of 10

discovery period, which is June 23, 2014. (These deadlines may be extended upon good cause shown).

The parties may alter these deadlines by agreement, pursuant to TRCP 11. Except by agreement of the parties, leave of Court, or where expressly authorized by the TRCP, no party may obtain discovery of information subject to TRCP 194 Disclosures by other forms of discovery (e.g. a request for production for testifying expert reports, witness statements, etc.). Repeated attempts of this type may be treated as an abuse of the discovery process and subject to Court sanctions.

MEDIATION

The parties shall mediate this case no later than fifty (50) days before the Trial Setting, which is June 9, 2014, in accordance with this Court's Standing Mediation Order or any amendment thereto by the Court or the parties. If a Mediation Order is not issued in the case by the Court, the Parties are ORDERED to obtain a copy of the Order from the Court Coordinator.

PRE-TRIAL MATTERS, EXHIBITS, JURY CHARGE, ETC

Fourteen (14) days before the Trial Setting, which is July 15, 2014, the parties shall exchange: (i) designations of deposition testimony (by page and line) to be offered in direct examination; (ii) a witness list; (iii) a jury questionnaire, if any; (iv) any Motions in Limine (please note the Court has a Standing Motion in Limine); (v) a proposed jury charge; and (vi) a list of exhibits, including any demonstrative aids and affidavits. The Parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits not previously produced in discovery; over-designation of witness and/or exhibits is strongly discouraged and may be sanctioned. Except for records to be offered by way of business record affidavits, each exhibit must be identified separately and not by category or group designation. Please do not file these documents with the Court, just exchange them among the Parties.

Eleven (11) days before the Trial Setting, which is July 18, 2014, the parties shall exchange, in writing, objections to the opposing party's proposed exhibits, including objections under rule 193.7 TRCP, as well as objections to any deposition testimony. The attorneys in charge for each party shall confer on stipulations regarding the materials to be submitted to the Court under this paragraph and each shall attempt to maximize agreement with each opposing attorney on such matters. Please do not file these documents with the Court, just exchange them among the Parties.

For Discovery Level II or III Cases Only: By 4:00 n.m., on the Thursday before the Trial Setting, which is July 24, 2014 each Party shall file with the Court a copy of its most recent Disclosures.

On the Trial Date, the parties shall bring to Court the documents required to have been exchanged in the preceding three paragraphs, along with a proposed Jury Charge for jury trials (a hard copy and on disk or CD in a Word Perfect or Word format) and any Motions in Limine (please note that the Court has its own Standing Motion in Limine). Counsel should be prepared

Order Page 3 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 4 of 10

to discuss with the Court an estimate of the length of trial and witnesses to be called (number, identity and anticipated length of testimony).

Unless otherwise notified by the Court Coordinator, all Counsel must appear on the morning of the Trial Date, with witnesses on one-hour standby. Counsel should be advised that, if their case is not reached on the morning of the trial date, they are subject to being held-over on standby for the rest of the week. The Court will not entertain continuances on the day of trial on the ground that a Party did not expect that it would not be reached, absent exigent circumstances.

PROCEDURES GOVERNING DAUBERT/ROBINSON HEARINGS

A challenge to an expert's opinion must be in writing and specify every ground for such challenge. A failure to specify a ground for a challenge is a waiver of that ground. The challenge, along with all supporting affidavits, deposition excerpts and any other evidence in support thereof, must be filed and served pursuant to the deadlines set forth in this Order. Direct testimony and all other evidence in support of the challenged expert must be reduced to affidavits and/or deposition excerpts of each and all witnesses to be used and such material filed with the Court's clerk no later than 4:00 p.m., four (4) days before the hearing. Such sponsoring evidence must be exchanged so as to be received in opposing counsel's office by 4:00 p.m., four (4) days before the hearing.

At the hearing, affiants, including challenged expert witnesses, may be present in the courtroom, but may not be presented for direct testimony in addition to their affidavits or deposition excerpts. The objecting party may cross examine affiants including challenged expert witnesses, if present in the Courtroom, only after which will the sponsoring party be permitted re-direct examination.

Please be advised that a challenge to the opinion of an expert, which is contained as evidence in the response to a Summary Judgment Motion, will likely result in the continuance of the Summary Judgment hearing so as not to work prejudice to the Summary Judgment Respondent, who, in effect, would otherwise be required to defend an expert at a Daubert/ Robinson hearing upon limited notice.

MISCELLANEOUS

Telephone Hearings (For parties out of town). — Participation in hearings by telephone for parties out of town is encouraged. Arrangements should be made with the Court Administrator.

Default and Minor Prove-Ups. — Unless instructed otherwise by the Court, default judgments should be presented by submission through affidavits; minor prove-ups shall be set for a hearing through the Court Administrator (which are to be held on Mondays).

Continuances. — Despite Dallas County Local Civil Rule 3.01(b), The Court does not require that continuances be signed by the Parties in addition to the Counsel (unless pro se, of course). However, be advised that an Agreed Motion for Continuance will not always be granted, especially those filed within two weeks before trial.

Order Page 4 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 5 of 10

Judgments Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 299a, do not include findings of fact in any proposed Judgment for the Court. The Court will not sign any such Judgments. After a trial, the prevailing party shall tender a judgment to the Court within 30 days or the case is subject to being dismissed without prejudice. Concerning the procedure of tendering Judgments to the Court, the Parties are ORDERED to comply with Dallas County Local Civil Rule 2.08, as if this Rule applied to judgments in addition to orders, and as if the Court requested such judgment to be presented after trial.

All parties in receipt of this Scheduling Order are ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on any Parties making an appearance after the date of this Order.

4.•

SIGNED this __JO 'day of 34v-417)Abl4L •

The Ho ble Carte sberg rd 193 Judicial District Court

Order Page 5 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 6 of 10

MISCELLANEOUS

Telephone Hearings (For [lathes out of towns. — Participation in hearings by telephone for parties out of town is encouraged. Arrangements should be made with the Court Administrator.

Default and Minor Prove-Uns, — Unless instructed otherwise by the Court, default judgments should be presented by submission through affidavits; minor prove-ups shall be set for a hearing through the Court Administrator (which are to be held on Mondays).

Continuances. --- Despite Dallas County Local Civil Rule 3.01(b), The Court does not require that continuances be signed by the Parties in addition to the Counsel (unless pro se, of course). However, be advised that an Agreed Motion for Continuance will not always be granted. especially those filed within two weeks before trial.

Judgments — Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 299a, do not include findings of fact in any proposed Judgment for the Court. The Court will not sign any such Judgments. After a trial, the prevailing party shall tender a judgment to the Court within 30 days or the case is subject to being dismissed without prejudice. Concerning the procedure of tendering Judgments to the Court, the Parties are ORDERED to comply with Dallas County Local Civil Rule 2.08, as if this Rule applied to judgments in addition to orders, and as if the Court requested such judgment to be presented after trial.

All parties in receipt of this Scheduling Order are ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on any Parties making an appearance after the date of this Order.

SIGNED this day of

The Honorable Cart Ginsberg 193 Judicial District Court

AGREED:

/ • 4 1----

Eric Policastro • Joh4on-Ditiodine, PC Umber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 2591 1.)4!lai Parkway. Suite 300 ,

1445 Ross Avenue. Suite 2500 Friscof X 75034 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 attorney for Defendants Deafi and Royce West Pastazios Pizza West & Associates P.O. Box 3960 Dallas, TX 75208-1260 Ramona Martinez Attorneys for Plaintiff Matthew E. Last Cobb Martinez Woodward 1700 Pacific Avenue. Suite 3100 Randy A. Nelson Dallas, Texas 75201 Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons. L.L.P. Attorneys for Island Hospitality Management, 700 N. Pearl. 25th Floor Hyatt House Franchising, LLC, Dallas. Texas 75201 Hyatt Hotels Corporation Attorney for Post Properties, Inc. and Grand Prix Floating Lessee, LLC, Post Addison Circle LP Ink Acquisition, LW.

Ink .Acquisition IL LLC, Ink Acquisition III, LLC, Dritan Rieke Ink Lessee, LLC, 5549 Bie River Drive Ink Lessee Holding LLC, The Colony, TX 75056 Chatham TRS Holding Inc., Pro Se Defendant Dfitan Kiehl Chatham Lodging, LP, and Jeffrey H. Fisher

Order Page 6 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 7 of 10

AGREED:

Samuel H. Johnson

Eric Policastro Johnson Broome, PC Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Frisco, TX 75034 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Attorney for Defendants Deari and Royce West Pastazios Pizza West & Associates P.O. Box 3960 Dallas, TX 75208-1260 Ramona Martinez Attorneys for Plaintiff Matthew E. Last Cobb Martinez Woodward 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Randy A. Nelson Dallas, Texas 75201 Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. Attorneys for Island Hospitality Management, 700 N. Pearl, 25th Floor Hyatt House Franchising, LLC, Dallas, Texas 75201 Hyatt Hotels Corporation Attorney for Post Properties, Inc. and Grand Prix Floating Lessee, LLC, Post Addison Circle LP Ink Acquisition, LLC, Ink Acquisition II, LLC, Ink Acquisition III, LLC, Dritan Kreka Ink Lessee, LLC, 5549 Big River Drive Ink Lessee Holding, LLC, The Colony, TX 75056 Chatham TRS Holding, Inc., Pro Se Defendant Dritan Kreka Chatham Lodging, LP, and Jeffrey H. Fisher

Order Page 7 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 8 of 10

AGREED:

Samuel H. Johnson

Eric Policastro Johnson Broome, PC

Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Frisco, TX 75034

Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Attorney for Defendants Deari and Royce West Pastazios Pizza West & Associates

P.O. Box 3960

Dallas, TX 75208-1260 Ramona Martinez

Attorneys for Matthew E. Last

Cobb Martinez Woodward

1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Randy A, Nelson Dallas, Texas 75201 Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. Attorneys for Island Hospitality Management,

700 N. Pearl, 25th Floor Hyatt House Franchising, LLC,

Dallas, Texas 75201 Hyatt Hotels Corporation Attorney for Post Properties, Inc. and Grand Prix Floating Lessee, LLC,

Post Addison Circle LP Ink Acquisition, LLC,

Ink Acquisition II, LLC,

Ink Acquisition III, LLC, Dritan Kreka Ink Lessee, LLC, 5549 Big River Drive Ink Lessee Holding, LLC, The Colony, TX 75056 Chatham TRS Holding, Inc., Pro Se Defendant Dritan Kreka Chatham Lodging, LP, and

Jef frey H Fisher

Order Page 8 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 9 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for the Mr. Dead has caused to be delivered to Defendant Kreka, pro se, and Mr.

Kreka has received a copy of the proposed agreed scheduling order. Counsel for Mr. Deari has made at least one attempt to contact Mr. Kreka followed the receipt by Mr. Kreka of the proposed agreed scheduling order. Mr. Kreka has failed to respond.

Certified to the 9th day of January 2014.

Matthew E. Last CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record either by telefax, electronic mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 9th day of January, 2014:

Eric Policastro Royce West Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank West & Associates 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 3960 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Dallas, TX 75208-1260 fax: 214.855.6808 fax: 214.941.1399 Attorney for Plaint tff Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H. Johnson Randy A. Nelson Johnson Broome, PC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 700 North Pearl Street Frisco, TX 75034 25th Floor — Plaza of the Americas fax: 972.584.6054 Dallas, TX 75201 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Attorney for Post Properties Pastazios Pizza

Dritan Kreka 5549 Big River Drive The Colony, TX 75056 Defendant Kreka

F.

RAMONA MARTINEZ MATTHEW E. LAST

Order Page 9 of 9

Scheduling Order Page 10 of 10

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 3/21/2014 3:19:49 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

Eric Policastro epolicastro@ghjhlaw.com (214) 855-6848

March 21, 2014

VIA E-MAIL VIA E-MAIL Ramona Martinez Randy Nelson Matthew Last Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP Cobb Martinez Woodward PLLC rnelson@thompsoncoe.com rmartinez@cobbmartinez.com mlast@cobbmartinez.com VIA E-MAIL Samuel H. Johnson Johnson Broome, P.C. sjohnson@johnsonbroome.com

Re: Jane Doe v. Ajredin “Danny” Deari, et al. Rule 11 Agreement re: Expert Designations

Dear Counsel, This letter agreement, made pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 11, memorializes the agreement reached between Plaintiff and Defendants in the above-captioned case. The agreement is:

1. The parties to this agreement have agreed to alter the time period listed in paragraph 4 of the 193rd Judicial District Court’s Standing Scheduling Order from “March 31, 2014…” to “April 30, 2014….” and 2. The parties to this agreement have agreed to alter the time period listed in paragraph 5 of the 193rd Judicial District Court’s Standing Scheduling Order from “April 30, 2014…” to “May 31, 2014….”; and 3. The parties to this agreement have agreed to alter the time period listed in paragraph 6 of the 193rd Judicial District Court’s Standing Scheduling Order from “May 5, 2014…” to “June 6, 2014….”

As always, this agreement may be modified upon the mutual assent, in writing, of all parties to this agreement.

Please sign this letter in the space indicated below and return a copy of the same to me.

Plaintiff will file the executed version with the Court after receiving duly executed counterparts of the letter from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if this letter misstates our agreement in anyway, or if you have any questions.

March 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully,

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP AND WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Eric Policastro ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI AND PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HYATT HOTELS CORP.; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; INK ACQUISITION, LLC, GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; AND JEFFREY H. FISHER

March 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully,

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP AND WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Eric Policastro ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI AND PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

_____________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HYATT HOTELS CORP.; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; INK ACQUISITION, LLC, GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; AND JEFFREY H. FISHER

March 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully,

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP AND WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Eric Policastro ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI AND PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HYATT HOTELS CORP.; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; INK ACQUISITION, LLC, GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; AND JEFFREY H. FISHER

March 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully,

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP AND WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Eric Policastro ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AIREDIN "DANNY" DEARI AND PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POST ADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

AGREED AND WITH AUTHORITY:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HYATT HOTELS CORP.; HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC; ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; INK ACQUISITION, LLC, GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; CHATIIAM LODGING, L.P.; AND JEFFREY H. FISHER

Cause Number: DC-13-04564 JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

Plaintiff, § §

v. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT §

ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, § INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; § HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C.; § GRAND PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; § INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; POST ADDISION § CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; § PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; AJREDIN § "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; and § DOES 1-25, § §

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS

Pursuant to the 193 rd Judicial District Court's Standing Scheduling Order and TEX. R.

elV. P. 194.2(f), Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff') hereby makes and serves Plaintiff's TEX R. CIV.

P. 194.2 (f) Expert Witness Designations. Plaintiff reserves the right to designate rebuttal expert

witnesses, designate expert witnesses identified by Defendants, and supplement and/or amend

these expert witness designations as discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have

been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. elv. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 1 oF20

Respectfully Respectfull y submitted,

•

Al

ROYCE WEST G. MICHAEL GRUBER State Bar No. 21206800 State Bar No. 08555400 royce. w@westllp.c om royce.w@westllp.com mgruber@ghjhlaw.coin mgruber@ghjhlaw.com

VERETTA FRAZIER ERIC POLICAST POLICASTRO RO

State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No.

No. 24068809

veretta.f@westllp.com veretta.f@westllp.com epolicastro@ghjhlaw.com epolicastro@ghjhlaw.com

NIGEL REDMOND TREY CRAWFOR CRAWFORD D

State Bar No.

No. 24058852 No. 24059623 State Bar No. 24059623

nigel.r@west llp.com nigels@westllp.com tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com tcrawford@g hjhlaw.com

WEST & ASSOCIATES

& ASSOCIATES, , L.L.P.

L.L.P. GRUBER HURST

GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN

JOHANSENHAIL

HAILSHANK

SHANKLLP

LLP

P.O. P.O. Box 3960 1445 Ross Avenue, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75208-1260 Dallas, Texas 75202 Dallas,

Ofc.: (214) Ofc.: (214) 941-1881

941-1881 214.855.6800 (main)

214.855.6800 (main)

Fax: (214)941-1399 Fax: (214) 941-1399 214.855.6808 (facsimile)

214.855.6808 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

S FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICA TE OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SERVICE

The The undersigned undersigned hereby

hereby certifies

certifies that

that aa true

true and

and correct

correct copy

copy of

of Plaintiff's

Plaintiff's TEX. R.CIV,

TEX R. CV. P.

P.

194.2 194.20(f) Expert Expert Witness

Witness Designations

Designations were

were served-in

served—in accordance

accordance with

with TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elY.

Cry. P.

P. 21,

21,

21a-on 21a—onApril April 30, 30,2014

2014 via

via certified

certified mail,

mail, return

return receipt

receiptrequested

requestedto

to all

all counsel

counsel of

of record.

record.

Eric Policastro

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.R.elv.

CI V.P.P.194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIO

DESIGNATIONS

NS PAGE 2 OF 20 PAGE20F20

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R.

R. CIV.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F) EXPERT

EXPERT WITNESS

WITNESS DESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATION S

(f) (f) For any any testifying expert:

expert:

(1) the expert's (1) expert's name, name, address,

address, and

and telephone

telephone number;

number;

the expert

(2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify;

general substance

(3) the general substance of the the expert's

expert's mental

mental impressions

impressions and

and opinions

opinions and

and aa

brief summary summary of the basis for them, them, or if

if the

the expert

expert is

is not

not retained

retained by,

by, employed

employed

by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting

such information;

(4) if the expert is retained (4) retained by, employed employed by, or otherwise subject to otherwise subject to the control control of

the responding party:

party:

(A) (A) all documents,

documents, tangible things, things, reports,

reports, models,

models, or data compilations compilations that

have have been

been provided

provided to,

to, reviewed

reviewedby,

by, or

or prepared

preparedby

by or

or for

for the

the expert in

expert in

anticipation anticipation of the

the expert's

expert's testimony;

testimony; and

and

(B) (B) the

the expert's

expert's current resume

resume and

and bibliography;

bibliography;

RESPONSE: RESPONSE:

The The following following individuals

individuals have

have been

been retained

retained by

by Plaintiff

Plaintiff in

in this

this case

case to

to help

help the

the jury

jury and

and

Court Court better better understand understand various medical, scientific, various medical, scientific, professional, technical, andlor professional, technical, and/or scientific scientific

aspects aspectsof ofthe the claims

claims brought

broughtby

by Plaintiff

Plaintiff due

due to

to the

the damages

damages she

she incurred

incurred that

that were

were caused

caused by

by

Defendants' Defendants' tortious tortious conduct:

conduct:

I.I. RETAINED RETAINEDTESTIFYING TESTIFYINGEXPERTS

EXPERTS

Dr. Dr. Claire

ClaireE.

E.Brenner,

Brenner,M.D.

M.D.

Dr. Dr.Claire ClaireE.

E.Brenner,

Brenner,M.D.-(972)

M.D.—(972)494-1155,

494-1155,2241

2241Peggy

PeggyLane

LaneSuite

SuiteE,

E, Garland,

Garland,Texas

Texas

75042-is 75042—isaamedical medicaldoctor

doctorwho

who holds

holds board

board certifications

certificationsin

in infectious

infectious disease

disease and

and internal

internal

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX.R.

R.elv.

CIV.P.P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE33OF PAGE 20

OF20

medicine. Please medicine. Pleasesee see the

the attached

attached Exhibit

Exhibit A

A for

for aa copy

copy of

ofDr.

Dr.Brenner's

Brenner'sresume

resume and/or

and/or

bibliography. In bibliography. In this this case, Dr. Brenner

Brenner may testify concerning concerning the clinical

clinical course

course of

of infectious

infectious

diseases, including diseases, including the the herpes

herpes virus,

virus, generally,

generally, as

as well

well as

as in Plaintiff's

Plaintiffs case.

case. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

may

testify testify about about the general nature, nature, incubation,

incubation, presentment,

presentment, recurrence,

recurrence, and

and effects

effects of the herpes

herpes

virus virus related related to individual who is infected to an individual infected with the the disease,

disease, including

including Plaintiff.

Plaintiff. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner

may testify concerning the clinical may clinical course, course, progression,

progression, treatment, effects (physical, (physical, emotional,

emotional,

financial, financial, etc.), etc.), and

and prognosis

prognosis of an individual individual diagnosed

diagnosed with

with the

the herpes

herpes virus,

virus, and the fact that

there there is for the is no cure for the herpes herpes virus,

virus, generally,

generally, as well

well as

as the

the same

same categories

categories of

of testimony

testimony

regarding regarding Plaintiff.

Plaintiff. Additionally,

Additionally, Dr.

Dr. Brenner may

may testify

testify generally

generally as

as to

to the human anatomy, the

effect effect of of the the herpes

herpes virus

virus on

on an infected

infected individual's

individual's body,

body, mind,

mind, and

and quality

quality of life,

life, as

as well

well as

the the irreversible irreversible effects effects of the herpes virus, virus, complications

complications caused

caused by

by the herpes virus throughout

an an individual's life including during pregnancy/labor pregnancy/labor and

and the

the effects

effects itit may

may have

have on a newborn

child. child. Dr.

Dr. Brenner Brenner may

may testify

testify about

about the

the effect

effect the

the herpes

herpes virus

virus has

has on

on an infected individual's infected individual's

immune immune system system throughout throughout said

said individual's

individual's life.

life. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

may testify

testify about the progression progression

of of the the disease disease in Plaintiff, and the mental, mental, physical,

physical, psychological,

psychological, financial, financial, and physiological physiological

obstacles obstacles Plaintiff Plaintiff will

will encounter

encounterthroughout

throughouther

herlife

lifeas

asaa result

result of

of the

the rape

rape and

and the

the disease.

disease. She

She

may may also also testify testify concerning concerning the scientific literature the scientific literature on the biological, biological, physical,

physical, physiological,

physiological,

social, social, and and mental mental effects

effects of infectious

infectious diseases—including diseases-includ ing the

the herpes

herpes virus-authored

virus—authored by

by Dr.

Dr.

Brenner Brennerand andothers.

others.Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brennermay

may testify

testifyas

as to

to Plaintiff

Plaintiff's

s and

and Defendant Deari'ss medical Defendant Deari' medical

history, history,respectively.

respectively.She Shemay

maytestify

testify concerning

concerningthe

thetransmission

transmissionof

ofthe

the herpes

herpes virus

virus from

from one

one

individual individualtotoanother, another,including

includingthe

thesame

samefor

forPlaintiff.

Plaintiff.Dr.

Dr.Brenner

Brennermay

maytestify

testifyasastoto the

the

procedures, procedures,protocols, protocols,tests,

tests,and

andscience

sciencebehind

behindthe

thesame

samethat

thataa medical

medical staff

staff could

could and

and would

would

observe observeand/or and/orperform perfomifor

foran

an individual

individualwho

whoisissuspected

suspectedtotohave

havebeen

beenthe

the victim

victim of

of aa sexual

sexual

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE 4 OF 20 PAGE40F20 assault, including what was done for Plaintiff on April 26, 2011. assault, 2011. Dr. Brenner Brenner may testify

testify as

as to

to

results of the results of the rape rape kit

kit performed

performed on Plaintiff

Plaintiff on April 26, 2011, as well well as

as the

the results

results of

of the

the

State of Texas's sexually sexually transmitted

transmitted disease

disease test of

of Defendant

Defendant Deari. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

may testify

testify

herpes virus that the herpes virus that that Plaintiff

Plaintiff presented

presented to Parkland

Parkland hospital in May

May 2011

2011 was

was consistent

consistent

of herpes that took

with an initial outbreak of took place place during

during and/or

andlor immediately

immediately after the generally generally

accepted incubation accepted incubation time time for

for the

the disease

disease after

after an individual's first exposure.

exposure. Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

testify that Plaintiff may require medical monitoring, monitoring, treatment,

treatment, andlor

and/or hospitalization as a result

of the disease.

disease. Dr.

Dr. Brenner may also

also testify that Plaintiff has has incurred

incurred in the past, and will incur

in the future, future, medical medical expenses

expenses as

as a result

result of the herpes

herpes virus

virus she

she contracted

contracted from

from the sexual

sexual

assault assault that that took took place

place at

at the Hyatt House

House hotel.

hotel. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

may also

also testify

testify that said past and

future future medical medical expenses expenses are

are reasonable

reasonable and

and necessary,

necessary, especially

especially in

in light

light of the incurable nature

of the the disease disease for for which

which Plaintiff has

has been

been diagnosed.

diagnosed. Dr.

Dr. Brenner

Brenner may

may further

further testify

testify as

as to

to facts

facts

and and circumstances circumstancesregarding regardingthe

thenature

natureof

ofthe

the injuries

injuries and

and damages

damagesthat

that are

are the

the subject

subject of

of this

this

action. action. Dr.

Dr. Brenner's Brenner's testimony

testimony will be based upon her skill, knowledge, education, experience, experience,

and and training, training, as as well

well as her review

as her review of

of Plaintiffs

Plaintiff smedical

medical records

records and

and diagnoses,

diagnoses, scientific

scientific

literature literature and and studies,

studies, and evidence, pleadings, and the evidence, pleadings, and discovery discovery served,

served, produced,

produced, and/or

andlor

elicited elicitedin in this this case

case and

and based

based upon reasonable degree upon a reasonable degree of medical medical and scientific

scientific probability

probability

andlor and/or certainty.

certainty.Plaintiff Plaintiffreserves

reservesthe

the right

right to

to supplement and/or amend supplement andlor amend this this expert witness

expert witness

designation designationasasdiscovery discoverycontinues

continuesand

andadditional

additionalfacts

factsand

and evidence

evidencehave

have been

been learned

learned and

and

produced. produced.

Mr. Mr.John

John A.

A. Harris,

Harris, CPA,

CPA, CPP,

CPP,PSP

PSP

Mr. Mr.John JohnA.

A.Harris,

Harris,CPP,

CPP,PSP,

PSP,CPA-( 404) 888-0060,

CPA (404) 888-0060, 1170 1170Peachtree

PeachtreeStreet,

Street, Suite

Suite 1200,

1200,

Atlanta, Atlanta,Georgia Georgia30309-is 30309—isa apremises

premisesliability

liabilityand

andforensic

forensicsecurity

securityexpert.

expert.Please

Pleasesee

see the

the

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.

R.elv.

CIV.P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATION

DESIGNATIONS

S PAGE 5 OF 20 PAGE50F20 attached Exhibit B attached B for for aa copy

copy of

ofMr.

Mr. Harris's

Harris'sresume

resume and/or

and/or bibliography.

bibliography. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris is

is board

board

certified in certified security management in security management (CPP)

(CPP) and

and Physical

Physical Security

Security (PSP)

(PSP) by

by the

theprofessional

professional

certification board certification board of ASIS ASIS International,

International, an

an ANSI

ANSIaccredited

accreditedstandards

standardsdevelopment

development

organization with organization with worldwide worldwide membership

membership of

of over

over 37,000

37,000 security

security professionals. Mr. Harris's professionals. Mr.

CPP certification CPP certification is the preeminent is the preeminent designation designation awarded

awarded to

to individuals

individuals whose

whose primary

primary

responsibilities are responsibilities are in security management and who have demonstrated advanced knowledge in

security security solutions solutions and best business business practices.

practices. Mr.

Mr. Harris's

Harris's experience in physical security began

I

over over 40 years ago when he was 40 years was undergoing undergoing training

training to become a commissioned commissioned officer

officer in the

United United States States Marine Marine Corps,

Corps, and

and he has conducted

he has conducted over 1,200 1,200 security

security risk

risk assessments

assessments of

various various types types of commercial commercial properties

properties including

including apartments, hotels, office buildings, apartments, hotels, buildings, parking

lots, lots, and and malls malls located

located in 43

43 states as well as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Colombia,

South South America.

America. In In this

this case,

case, Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may

may testify

testify that

that the

the sexual

sexual assault

assault of Plaintiff on April April

26, 26, 2011, 2011, while while the

the guest

guest of an invitee and/or and/or invitee

invitee at the Hyatt House located at 4900 Edwin

Lewis Lewis Drive Drive in in Addison,

Addison, Texas,

Texas, was

was reasonably

reasonably foreseeable

foreseeable and

and should

should have

have been anticipated

anticipated by

by

the the "Hotel "Hotel Defendants"l Defendants"' based

based on the crimes

crimes committed

committed on the premises premises and the surrounding surrounding

area area in in the the five five years

years preceding

preceding April

April 26,

26, 2011.

2011. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may

may testify

testify that,

that, prior

prior to

to April

April 26,

26,

2011, 2011, there there had had been

been sufficient

sufficient crime

crime committed

committed at

at the

the Hyatt

Hyatt Hotel-including

Hotel—including an

an armed

aimed robbery

robbery

of of an an employee employee of of the Hotel Defendants'

the Hotel Defendants' just just months

months before

before Plaintiff

Plaintiff was

was raped

raped on

on the

the same

same

premises-and premises—andininthe the immediate

immediate vicinity

vicinitytoto put

put the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants on

on notice

notice that reasonable

reasonable

security securitymeasures measureswere wereneeded

needed for

for the

the security,

security, safety

safety and

and well-being

well-being of

of their

their guests,

guests, invitees,

invitees,

and and other otherpeople people legally

legally on

on their

their property.

property. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may

maytestify

testifythat

that in

in the

the five

five years

years preceding

preceding

11As Asused usedherein, herein,"Hotel

"Hotel Defendants"

Defendants" refers

referstoto Island

Island Hospitality

HospitalityManagement,

Management, Inc.,

Inc., Grand

GrandPrix

Prix

Floating FloatingLessee, Lessee,LLC,

LLC, Hyatt

Hyatt Hotels

Hotels Corporation,

Corporation, Hyatt

Hyatt House

House Franchising,

Franchising, LLC,

LLC, Jeffrey

Jeffrey H.

H.

Fisher, Fisher, Chatham ChathamLodging, Lodging,L.P.,

L.P., Chatham

ChathamTRS TRS Holding, Holding, LLC,

LLC, Ink

Ink Acquisition, LLC, Ink Acquisition, LLC, Ink

Acquisition AcquisitionII, II,LLC,

LLC,Ink

InkAcquisition

Acquisition III,

III, LLC,

LLC,Ink

InkLessee

LesseeHolding,

Holding,LLC,

LLC, and

and Ink

Ink Lessee

Lessee LLC.

LLC.

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE 6 OF 20 PAGE60F20 the attack the attack on Plaintiff Plaintiff at the hotel,

hotel, that

that there

there had

had been

been aa significant

significant number

number of

ofcriminal

criminal incidents

incidents

reported to the Addison Addison Police

Police Department

Department (including

(including multiple crimes at the the Hyatt

Hyatt House

House hotel

hotel

and other hotels immediately in the vicinity of and of the Hyatt House hotel) such that the real real potential

potential

of a violent of violent crime crime taking place at

at the

the hotel

hotel was

was reasonably

reasonably foreseeable.

foreseeable. Mr. Harris

Harris may

may testify

testify

reported offenses

that these reported offenses included included violent

violent crime

crime that

that the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants either knew or

reasonably should have known about and should have taken proactive steps to ensure the security

of its premises but did not. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants negligently failed to

analyze the analyze the level level of crime

crime at or

or near

near the

the Hyatt

Hyatt House

House hotel

hotel provided

provided by

by the

the Addison

Addison Police

Police

Department Departmentand andthe

the Texas

Texas Department

Departmentof

of Public

Public Safety

Safety and

and to

to utilize

utilize those

those analyses

analyses in

determining determining the the security

security needs

needs of the property,

property, and that the Hotel Defendants negligently failed

to request any information to request information from from the Addison

Addison Police

Police Deparmient

Department regarding past or current regarding past current

criminal criminal incidents incidents on

on the

the premises

premises and

and in

in the

the immediate vicinity as immediate vicinity as a reasonably prudent hotel

operator operator would would and and should

should have

have done.

done. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may

may testify

testify that

that the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants failed

failed to

to

conduct conduct either either component component of

of aa security

security risk

risk assessment,

assessment, including

including the

the failure

failure to

to conduct

conduct aa threat

threat

assessment assessment (based (based upon

upon historical

historical information

information of

of past

past criminal

criminal events,

events, actual

actual threats,

threats, inherent

inherent

threats, threats, and and potential

potential threats

threats by

by virtue

virtue of

of the

the vulnerabilities

vulnerabilities around

around the

the hotel

hotel or

or weaknesses

weaknesses in

in the

the

security securityprogram programwhich whichproduce

produceopportunities

opportunitiesfor

forcrime

crimetotooccur)

occur) and

and the

the negligent

negligent failure

failure to

to

conduct conductaa vulnerability vulnerabilityassessment

assessmenttoto analyze

analyzethe

theweaknesses

weaknessesof

ofthe

theHotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' security

security

program programor, or, alternatively, alternatively,that

that the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants negligently

negligentlyfailed

failedto

to engage

engage aa professional

professional

security securityconsultant consultanttotoconduct

conductthe

theanalysis.

analysis.Mr.

Mr.Harris

Harrismay

maytestify

testifythat

that the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants'

negligent negligentfailure failuretotoconduct

conductaa security

security risk

risk assessment

assessmentmade

madeitit impossible

impossiblefor

for the

the Hotel

Hotel

Defendants Defendantstotoassess assessthe

the likelihood

likelihood that

that criminals

criminals could

could and

and would

would exploit

exploit vulnerabilities

vulnerabilities or

or

compromise compromisesecurity securitycountermeasures

countermeasuresatatthe

thehotel.

hotel.Mr.

Mr.Harris

Harrismay

maytestify

testifythat,

that,based

basedupon

uponthe

the

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.

R.elv.

CIV.P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE 7 OF 20 PAGE70F20

Hotel Defendants' Hotel Defendants' experience experience in

inthe

the lodging

lodging industry,

industry, the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants knew

knew or

or should

should have

have

known that known guests, invitees, that their guests, invitees, and other people and other people legally on their legally on their property were at risk property were risk to

to

criminal activities criminal activities if reasonable reasonable security

security measures

measures were

were not

not undertaken, and that the undertaken, and the Hotel Hotel

Defendants knew or should have known that in the absence absence of

of reasonable

reasonable security

security measures, the

multiple property multiple property crimes crimes (e.g.,

(e.g., theft,

theft, vehicle

vehicle break-ins,

break-ins, etc.)

etc.) that

that were

were reported

reported at the Hyatt

Hyatt

House hotel can lead to violent crimes against persons. Mr. Harris may testify that it is generally generally

accepted that accepted that most crimes are not most crimes not random random events,

events, but

but planned

planned events

events in

in environments

environments which

which

provide the opportunity to commit a crime with the least likelihood of detection, intervention and

apprehension apprehension and, and, further,

further, that these conditions conditions existed at the the Hyatt House

House hotel on, and prior to,

the April 26, the April 26, 2011 2011 attack

attack on

on Plaintiff

Plaintiff yet the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants did nothing.

nothing. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may

testify testify that that the Hotel Defendants negligently negligently failed

failed to

to have security and/or

andlor adequate security

security at

the the Hyatt Hyatt House House hotel

hotel and that the Hotel Defendants Defendants knew

knew or should

should have

have known

known that they did

not not have security andlor have security adequate security and/or adequate security and and that the inadequate

inadequate security

security was unreasonably unreasonably

safe. safe. Mr.

Mr. Harris Harris may

may testify

testify that,

that, at all pertinent times, the Hotel Hotel Defendants owned,

owned, operated,

operated,

andlor and/or controlled controlledthe the Hyatt

Hyatt House

House hotel,

hotel, and

and that

that the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants owed

owed aa duty

duty to

to Plaintiff

to to exercise exercise reasonable reasonable care

care (at

(at a minimum)

minimum) to

to protect

protect Plaintiff from

from criminal

criminal attacks

attacks and

and other

other

reasonably reasonablyforeseeable foreseeableinjuries.

injuries.Mr.

Mr.Harris

Harrismay

may testify

testify that

that the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants

Defendants breached

breached its

its

duties duties by by committing committingthe

the following

followingnon-exhaustive

non-exhaustivelist

listofofacts

acts or

or omissions:

omissions: (1)

(1) the

the Hotel

Hotel

Defendants Defendantsnegligently negligentlyfailed

failedtoto exercise

exercise reasonable

reasonablecare

care in

in providing

providing security

security guard

guard services

services

(the (the same same services servicesthat

that were

were once

once provided

provided but

but eliminated

eliminateddue

due to

to an

an attempted cost savings attempted cost savings

measure measureby by the the Hotel

Hotel Defendants);

Defendants); (2)

(2) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' failure

failure to implement

implement sufficient

sufficient

security securitymeasures measuresand andconduct

conductany

anytype

typeof

ofthreat

threatassessment

assessmentor

orsecurity

securityassessment

assessmentfor

forthe

theHyatt

Hyatt

House Househotel hotelatatany any point

point in

in time

time (including

(includingtoto this

this day);

day); (3)

(3) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants' negligent Defendants' negligent

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.

R elv.

CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT

P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS WITNESSDESIGNATION

DESIGNATIONS

S PAGE80F20 PAGE 8 OF 20 failure to failure properly train to properly train any any of

of its

itsemployees

employees on

on adequate

adequate security

security measures

measures for

for the

the safe

safe

operation of operation of a hotel; (4) the Hotel Defendants' negligent negligent failure

failure to have

have more

more than

than one

one employee

employee

working during working during the the hours

hours of 7:00

7:00 p.m.

p.m. and

and 11:00

11 :00 p.m.

p.m. when

when Plaintiff

Plaintiff was

was being

being sexually

sexually

assaulted at the hotel; (5) the Hotel Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent

negligent failure

failure to

to implement

implement security

security policies

policies

procedures that adhere to industry and procedures industry best best practices

practices of

of identifying,

identifying, addressing,

addressing, and

and mitigating

mitigating

security vulnerabilities security vulnerabilities at at the

the hotel;

hotel; (6)

(6) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent

negligent failure

failure to

to adhere

adhere to its

own security policies policies and procedures

procedures (despite

(despite the

the fact

fact that

that said policies

policies and procedures fall far

below the the industry industry standard

standard of care);

care); (7)

(7) the Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent failure to provide any

security personnel personnel at the hotel (which, naturally, naturally, caused the

the Hotel Defendants to fail to train said

personnel personnel properly);

properly); (8)

(8) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent failure failure to properly or adequately adequately train

management management personnel personnelfor

for oversight

oversightof

of security

security and

and safety

safety issues;

issues; (9)

(9) the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants'

negligent negligent failure failure to

to provide appropriate and adequate physical security measures commensurate

with with the the risk that existed on the premises—including, premises-includin g, but

but not

not limited

limited to,

to, the

the lack

lack of any patrols

(Le., (i.e., off-duty off-duty police police officers,

officers, private

private security

security guards,

guards, etc.);

etc.); (10)

(10) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent

failure failure to to have have any

any system,

system, procedure,

procedure, or

or policy

policy in place

place to

to detect,

detect, monitor,

monitor, and

and control access

access to

to

the the hotel;

hotel; (11)

(11) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent failure failure to

to enforce

enforce procedures

procedures regarding

regarding suspicious

suspicious

guests guests and and suspicious suspicious prospective

prospective guests

guests during

during the

the check-in

check-inprocess;

process; (12)

(12) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants'

negligent negligent failure failure to

to have

have operable

operable closed

closed circuit

circuit television

television (CCTV)

(CCTV) cameras

cameras installed

installed in

in any

any area

area

of of the the hotel hotel that would be conducive that would conducive to guest guest safety

safety and security

security and,

and, further,

further, conducive to

conducive to

deterring, deterring,detecting, detecting,monitoring,

monitoring,oror preventing preventingcrime;

crime;(13)

(13) the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent

negligent

failure failureto to even even know

know about-let

about—let alone

alone implement-the

implement—the generally

generally accepted

accepted industry

industry standards

standards for

for

premises premisessecurity securityand andpremises

premisessecurity

securityatataa lodging

lodgingfacility

facilityfound

foundin

in NFP

NFPA 370 and

A 370 and 371;

371; (14)

(14)

the the Hotel Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' negligent

negligent failure

failure to

to adhere

adhere to

to industry

industry best

best practices

practices by

by failing

failing to

to identify

identify

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F) EXPERT

EXPERT WITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE 9 OF 20 PAGE90F20 and address and address measures to mitigate mitigate security

security vulnerabilities at the hotel; (15) the Hotel Defendants'

negligent failure negligent failure to exercise reasonable to exercise reasonable care care in providing

providing adequate

adequate security

security and

and failing

failing to

to

implement sufficient security measures;

measures; (16)

(16) the

the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to conduct conduct

periodic reviews periodic reviews and recapitulations of and recapitulations of security security incident

incident reports

reports at

at the

the Hyatt House hotel and and

remedy the remedy security deficiencies the security deficiencies that that it knew

knew or should have known about;

about; and (17)

(17) the Hotel

Hotel

remedy the glaring

Defendants' negligent failure to remedy glaring security concerns noted on its own own internal

internal

audits for for years prior to the attack on Plaintiff. Mr. Harris may testify that the negligent acts and

omissions by omissions by the Defendants to the Hotel Defendants discharge the to discharge the duties

duties of

of aa reasonably

reasonably prudent

prudent property

property

owner/manage r/operator toto provide owner/manager/operator provide reasonable reasonable security

security and

and property

property management

management measures

measures at

the Hyatt Hotel the Hyatt Hotel was was a substantial

substantial factor

factor and/or

and/or proximate

proximate cause

cause of

of the

the attack on Plaintiff and

damages damagesshe she incurred.

incurred.Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harrismay

may testify

testifythat

that had

had the

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants acted as Defendants acted as a

reasonably reasonably prudent prudent property

property owner/manage r/operator would owner/manager/operator wouldhave haveacted

actedin

in the

the same

same or similar

circumstances circumstances (given (given the

the amount,

amount, similarity,

similarity, proximity,

proximity, frequency,

frequency, and

and publicity

publicity of

of crime

crime at

at or

or in

in

the the immediate immediate vicinity vicinity of

of the

the Hyatt

Hyatt House

House Hotel)

Hotel) to provide reasonable reasonable security

security and

and property

property

management managementmeasures measuresatatthe

theHyatt

HyattHouse

Househotel,

hotel,itit isis more

more probable

probable than

than not

not that

that the

the sexual

sexual

assault assault of of Plaintiff Plaintiff would

would not

not have

have occurred.

occurred.Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harrismay

maytestify

testifythat

that due

due to

to the

the violent

violent

criminal criminal atmosphere atmospherethat thatexisted

existed atat the

the Hyatt

Hyatt House

House hotel

hotel and

and in

in its

its immediate

immediate vicinity,

vicinity, that

that the

the

Hotel Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' failure failure to provide security to provide security guards, guards, operable

operable closed-circuit televisions, and closed-circuit televisions, and

other other reasonable reasonablesecurity securitymeasures

measureswas

wasiningross

grossbreach

breachof

of minimum

minimumstandards

standardsof

ofcare

carefor

for an

an

innkeeper. innkeeper.Mr.

Mr.Harris

Harrismay

maytestify

testifythat

thatthe

the Hotel

Hotel Defendants'

Defendants' acts

acts or

or omissions, when viewed omissions, when viewed

objectively objectivelyfrom fromthe

thestandpoint

standpointof

ofthe

theHotel

HotelDefendants

Defendantsatatthe

thetime

timeof

ofits

its occurrence

occurrence involved

involvedan

an

extreme extremedegree degreeof ofrisk,

risk,considering

consideringthe

theprobability

probabilityand

andmagnitude

magnitudeof

ofthe

thepotential

potentialharm

harmtotoothers,

others,

and and that that the Hotel Defendants the Hotel Defendants had

had actual,

actual, subjective

subjective awareness

awarenessofofthe

the risk

risk involved, but

involved, but

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.

R.elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATION

DESIGNATIONS

S PAGE1010oF20 PAGE OF 20 nevertheless proceeded nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference with conscious indifference to to the

the rights,

rights, safety,

safety, or welfare

welfare of

ofothers,

others,

including Plaintiff. including Plaintiff. With With respect

respect to Pastazios Pizza, to Pastazios Pizza, Inc., Inc., Post

Post Addison

Addison Circle

Circle Limited

Limited

Partnership, and Partnership, and Post Properties, Properties, Inc.,

Inc., Plaintiff expects

expects that

that Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may testify in aa similar similar

fashion as fashion he may as he may testify testify as

as to

to the

theHotel

HotelDefendants

Defendants (but,

(but, naturally,

naturally, with

with respect to aa

respect to

restaurant/restaurant common restaurant/restaurant commonarea areathat

thatisisopen

opentotothe

the public

public such

such that

that the

the owners

owners of said

said

premises know premises know that that alcohol

alcohol is consumed on

is consumed on said

said premises

premises by

by the

the public

public on a daily

daily basis).

basis). Mr.

Mr.

Harris may Harris may testify testify that Post entities that the Post entities were were negligent

negligent and grossly

grossly negligent

negligent for

for failing

failing to

to

terminate terminate its its lease

lease with Pastazios Pizza, with Pastazios Pizza, Inc.

Inc. after Pastazios violated the Pastazios violated the Texas Alcohol Alcohol and

and

Beverage Beverage Code Code on

on multiple

multiple occasions,

occasions, including

including aa publicly

publicly known

known sale

sale of

of alcohol

alcohol to

to an 18 year

old female female in 2002 2002 during

during a law enforcemen

enforcementt sting operation.

operation. Mr.

Mr. Harris

Harris may further testify as as to

to

facts facts and and circumstances regarding circumstances regarding the the nature

nature of

of the

the injuries

injuries and

and damages

damages that

that are

are the

the subject

subject of

of

this action. Mr. this action. Harris's testimony Mr. Harris's testimony will will be

be based

based upon

upon his

his skill,

skill,knowledge,

knowledge, education,

education,

experience, experience, and and training,

training, as

as well

well as

as his

his review

review of the pertinent authoritativ authoritative publications written e pUblications written

by by him him and and others, others, and

and the

the evidence,

evidence, pleadings,

pleadings, and

and discovery

discovery served,

served, produced,

produced, and/or

and/or elicited

elicited

in in this this case based upon case and based upon aa reasonable reasonable degree

degree of

ofprofessional

professional probability

probability and/or certainty.

certainty.

Plaintiff Plaintiffreserves reservesthe

the right

right to supplement and/or to supplement and/or amend amend this

this expert

expert witness

witness designation as

designation as

discovery discoverycontinues continuesand

andadditional

additionalfacts

facts and

andevidence

evidencehave

havebeen

beenlearned

learnedand

andproduced.

produced.

Dr. Dr.William

WilliamE.

E.Flynn,

Flynn,Ph.D.

Ph.D.

Dr. Dr. William William E.

E. Flynn,

Flynn, Ph.D.-(214

Ph.D.—(214)) 202-7344,

202-7344,100

100Highland

HighlandPark

Park Village,

Village, Suite

Suite 200,

200,

Dallas, Dallas,Texas Texas75205-is 75205—isaaforensic

forensicand

andclinical

clinicalpsychologis

psychologist. Pleasesee

t. Please seethe

theattached

attachedExhibit

ExhibitCC

for foraa copy copy of of Dr.

Dr. Flynn's resume

resume and/or

and/or bibliography.

bibliography. In

In this

this case,

case, Dr.

Dr. Flynn

Flynn may

may testify,

testify,

generally, generally,about aboutthe

thepsychological, medical, psychological, medical, behavioral, behavioral, educational,

educational,physiologic

physiological, vocational, al, vocational,

and andsocial socialtrauma traumathat

thataa victim

victim of

of a sexual

sexual assault—including

assault-inc luding aa sexual sexual assault

assault that

that ultimately

ultimately

PLAINTIFF' S TEX. PLAINTIFF'S TEX.R.

R.elv.

CIV.P.P.194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATI

DESIGNATIONS

ONS PAGE1111oF20 PAGE OF 20 causes the causes the transmission transmission of

of an

an incurable

incurable disease—can

disease-c an experience,

experience, including Plaintiff Dr.

including Plaintiff. Dr. Flynn Flynn

may testify may testify about about Post-Traumatic

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") in general general and

and as

as applied

applied to

to victims

victims

of rape, of rape, including including Plaintiff

Plaintiff. Dr.

Dr.Flynn

Flynnmay

maytestify

testifyabout

aboutother

othermedical

medicaland

andpsychological

psychological

condition s-includin conditions g, but not limited including, limited to, to, depression,

depression, PTSD,

PTSD, sleep

sleep disorders,

disorders, eating

eating disorders,

disorders,

substance abuse, self-harm/self-injury, substance self-harmlself-injury, flashbacks, flashbacks, personalit

personalityy disorders,

disorders, suicide,

suicide, etc.—that

etc.-that are

are

reasonably likely to reasonably to arise arise in victims

victims of rape,

rape, including

including Plaintiff.

Plaintiff. Dr.

Dr. Flynn

Flynn may

may testify

testify regarding

regarding

the need for medical the need medical and/or andlor psychological

psychological treatment

treatment throughou

throughout the course

t the course of

of aa rape

rape victim's

life-gene rally, as life—generally, as well well as

as with respect to Plaintiff-

Plaintiff—and he may also and he also testify as to the reasonable

and and necessary necessary future future psychiatri

psychiatricc expenses

expenses that

that Plaintiff is,

is, in all reasonable

reasonable probabilit

probability, to

y, likely to

incur incur in in the the future

future as of Defendants'

as a result of Defendants' tortious tortious conduct

conduct and the permanent permanent and incurable

incurable

nature nature of of the the herpes

herpes virus.

virus. Dr.

Dr. Flynn

Flynn may

may testify

testify as

as to

to the permanent and incurable permanent and nature of incurable nature of

Plaintiff Plaintiff'ss injuries injuries and

and disease-a

disease—ass well

well as

as the

the impact

impact of

of said

said injuries

injuries and

and disease

disease on

on Plaintiff

Plaintiff's

s

life, life, education, education, future future earning

earning capacity,

capacity, mental

mental state,

state, etc.-from

etc.—from aa forensic

forensic and

and clinical

clinical

psycholog psychologyy perspective. Dr.

perspective. Dr.Flynn

Flynn may

may further

furthertestify

testify as

asto

to facts

facts and

and circumsta

circumstances regarding the nces regarding the

nature natureof ofthe the injuries

injuriesand

and damages

damagesthat

thatare

arethe

the subject

subjectof

ofthis

thisaction.

action.Dr.

Dr.Flynn's

Flynn's testimony

testimony will

will

be be based basedupon uponhis his skill,

skill, knowledge, education, knowledge, education,experienc experience, andtraining,

e, and training,asaswell wellasashis

hisreview

reviewof

of

the the pertinent pertinentauthoritative publicatio authoritative ns written publications writtenby

byhim

himand

and others,

others, and

and the

the evidence,

evidence, pleadings,

pleadings,

and anddiscovery discoveryserved, served,produced,

produced,andlor

and/orelicited

elicitedininthis

thiscase

caseand

andbased

basedupon

uponaa reasonable

reasonabledegree

degree

of ofprofessional, medical, professional, medical,and andscientific

scientificprobabilit

probability and/orcertainty.

y andlor certainty.Plaintiff Plaintiffreserves

reservesthe

theright

righttoto

supplemen t andlor supplement and/oramend amendthis

thisexpert

expertwitness

witnessdesignatio

designation

n asasdiscovery

discoverycontinues

continuesand

andadditional

additional

facts factsand andevidence evidencehave

havebeen

beenlearned

learnedand

andproduced.

produced.

Dr. Dr.Joe

JoeG.

G.Gonzales,

Gonzales,M.D.,

M.D.,FAAPMR

FAAPMR, CLCP

, CLCP

Dr. Dr.Joe JoeG.G.Gonzales -(210) 501-0995, Gonzales—(210) 501-0995,11550 11550IH

IH10

10West,

West,Suite

Suite375,

375,San

SanAntonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas

PLAINTIF F'S TEX. PLAINTIFF'S TEX.R.R.elv.

CIV.P.P.194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNA

DESIGNATIONS

TIONS PAGE12oF20 PAGE 12 OF 20 78230-is a Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation specialist (board certified), Pain Management

specialist (board certified), Occupational & Environmental Medicine specialist (board certified),

and certified life care planner who has practiced Medicine in Texas since 1985 and is certified by

the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, the American Board of Pain

Medicine, and the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Dr. Gonzales

is a Diplomat of the American Academy of Pain Management, a Designated Physician of the

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, and a Certified Life Care Planner as designated by

the Commission on Health Care Certification. Dr. Gonzales is the President of the Texas

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Institute, and the Founder and Medical Director of Physician

Life Care Planning, LLC. Dr. Gonzales is a licensed physician in the State of Texas. Please see

the attached Exhibit D for a copy of Dr. Gonzales's resume andlor bibliography. Dr. Gonzales

may testify about vocational feasibility or disabled related needs of injured people andlor

individuals with disabilities or life-altering and permanent diseases (such as Plaintiff), determine

the need for medical, psychological and vocational services, identify functional limitations and

need for assistive devices for Plaintiff, conduct job and task analyses as well as labor market

surveys. Dr. Gonzales may be called to testify with regard to life care planning for Plaintiff, and

the value of such assistance andlor care, for those-such as Plaintiff-who are injured or those

with disabilities. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to the permanent and incurable nature of Plaintiffs

injuries and disease-as well as the impact of said injuries and disease on Plaintiff slife,

education, future earning capacity, mental state, etc.-from a physical, psychological, andlor

social perspective, and he may testify as to what Plaintiff would have been capable of earning-

as well as Plaintiff s other economic losses-had she never been subject to the injuries caused by

Defendants' tortious conduct. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to the reasonable and necessary future

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. elv. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 13 oF20 medical expenses medical expenses that Plaintiff is, in all all reasonable

reasonable probability, likely to incur in the future as probability, likely as aa

result of result of Defendants'

Defendants' tortious

tortious conduct

conduct and

and the

the permanent

permanent and

and incurable

incurable nature

nature of

of the

the herpes

herpes

virus. Dr. Gonzales Gonzales may testify as to the economic economic loss incurred by Plaintiff in the past to treat treat

injuries she sustained the injuries sustained that that were caused by

were caused by Defendants, as well Defendants, as well as

as Plaintiff

Plaintiff'ss future

future loss

loss of

of

earning capacity earning capacity based based upon Plaintiff

Plaintiffss earnings,

earnings, medical

medical condition,

condition, stamina,

stamina, efficiency,

efficiency, ability

ability

to work in light light of

of the

the injuries

injuries sustained,

sustained, the

the weaknesses

weaknesses and changes that will naturally naturally result

from Plaintiffs injuries, and Plaintiffs Plaintiffs work-life

work-life expectancy.

expectancy. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to a life

care care plan for Plaintiff's plan for Plaintiffs lifetime lifetime that

that determines

determines her

her lifetime

lifetime needs

needs and

and costs

costs of care

care (e.g.,

(e.g.,

Plaintiff s medical, Plaintiff's medical, psychiatric, psychiatric, psychological, psychological, behavioral, educational, vocational behavioral, educational, vocational and and social

social

needs, needs, etc.)

etc.) for for her chronic

chronic disease

disease and psychological psychological trauma

trauma caused

caused by

by Defendants'

Defendants' tortious

tortious

conduct. conduct. Dr.

Dr. Gonzales Gonzales may

may further

further testify

testify as

as to

to facts

facts and

and circumstance

circumstances regarding the s regarding the nature

nature of

of

the the injuries injuries and and damages

damages that

that are

are the

the subject

subject of

of this

this action. Dr. Gonzales's action. Dr. Gonzales's testimony will be testimony will be

based based upon upon his his skill,

skill, knowledge,

knowledge, education,

education, experience,

experience, and

and training,

training, as

as well

well as

as his

his review

review of

of the

the

pertinent pertinent authoritative authoritativepublications publicationswritten

writtenby

byhim

him and

and others,

others, and

and the

the evidence,

evidence, pleadings,

pleadings, and

and

discovery discoveryserved, served,produced,

produced,and/or

and/orelicited

elicitedininthis

thiscase

caseand

andbased

basedupon

upon aa reasonable

reasonable degree

degree of

of

professional, professional,medical, medical,and

andscientific

scientificprobability

probabilityand/or

and/orcertainty.

certainty.Plaintiff

Plaintiffreserves

reservesthe

theright

right to

to

supplement supplementand/or and/oramend

amendthis

this expert

expert witness

witness designation

designation as

as discovery

discovery continues

continues and

and additional

additional

facts factsand andevidence evidencehave

havebeen

beenlearned

learnedand

andproduced.

produced.

Dr. Dr.John

JohnA.

A.Swiger,

Swiger,Ph.D.

Ph.D.

Dr. Dr.John JohnA.

A. Swiger,

Swiger,Ph.D.-(210)

Ph.D.—(210)434-6711,

434-6711,411

411S.W.

S.W.24th

24thStreet,

Street,San

SanAntonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas

78207-is 78207—isaaDoctor Doctorof

ofFinance

Financeand

andisisan

aneconomist.

economist.Please

Pleasesee

seethe

theattached ExhibitEEfor

attachedExhibit foraacopy copy

of ofDr.

Dr.Swiger's Swiger's resume resumeand/or

and/orbibliography.

bibliography.As

Asan

anexpert

experteconomist,

economist,Dr.

Dr.Swiger

Swigermay

maytestify

testifyasas

totothe theeconomic economicloss, loss,discounted

discountedtotopresent

presentvalue,

value,which

whichPlaintiff

Plaintiffhas

hasincurred

incurreddue

duetotothe

thetortious

tortious

PLAINTIFF'S TEX.R.R.elv. PLAINTIFF'STEX. CIV.P.P.194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIO

DESIGNATIONS

NS PAGE14oF20 PAGE 14 OF 20 conduct of Defendants. Dr. Swiger may also testify generally regarding the concept of present

value and its application to economic losses, particularly loss of earning capacity, past and future

medical expenses, lost wages, loss and future medical costs. Dr. Swiger may testify as to the

reasonable and necessary future medical expenses that Plaintiff is, in all reasonable probability,

likely to incur in the future as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct and the permanent and

incurable nature of the herpes virus. Dr. Swiger may testify as to the economic loss incurred by

Plaintiff in the past to treat the injuries she sustained that were caused by Defendants, as well as

Plaintiff s future loss of earning capacity based upon Plaintiff s earnings, medical condition,

stamina, efficiency, ability to work in light of the injuries sustained, the weaknesses and changes

that will naturally result from Plaintiffs injuries, and Plaintiffs work-life expectancy. Dr. Swiger

may testify as to Plaintiff s past lost wages, the economic value of the loss of enjoyment of life,

and other economic losses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct. Dr.

Swiger may also testify about Defendants' financial conditions, the net worth and profits of

Defendants, andlor Defendants' current fiscal policies andlor practices for purposes of

establishing Defendants' wealth during the punitive damages phase of trial. Dr. Swiger may

further testify as to facts and circumstances regarding the nature of the injuries and damages that

are the subject of this action. Dr. Swiger's testimony will be based upon his skill, knowledge,

education, experience, and training, as well as his review of the pertinent authoritative

publications written by him and others in the field of economics, and the evidence, pleadings,

and discovery served, produced, andlor elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree

of professional and scientific probability andlor certainty. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement andlor amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. elv. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 15 oF20

II. II. UNRETAINED TESTIFYING EXPERTS UNRETAINED

Plaintiff hereby designates the following individuals as "unretained testifying experts" as Plaintiff as

these individuals these individuals are are not retained by,

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

TEX. R.

Plaintiff. See TEX. Civ. P.

R.elY. P. 194.2(f)(3).

Detective Katie Spencer

Detective Katie Spencer—(972)

Spencer-(972) 450-7100, c/o Addison Police Department, 4799 Airport

Parkway, Parkway, Addison, Addison, Texas Texas 75001-is

75001—is a detective with the Addison Police Department. Detective

Spencer investigated Spencer investigated the the rape

rape of

of Plaintiff such

such that,

that, in addition to testifying addition to testifying with respect respect to her

expertise expertise in in criminal

criminal investigations

investigations and

and criminal

criminal conduct

conduct in

in Addison,

Addison, Texas

Texas (of

(of this

this case

case and

other other criminal criminal cases cases in

in Addison,

Addison, Texas

Texas from

from 2005

2005 to

to the present)—Detective Spencer isis also present)-Detect ive Spencer also a

percipient witness witness of

of the

the circumstances surrounding surrounding the

the sexual

sexual assault

assault on Plaintiff

Plaintiff and

and the

the lack

lack of

of

security security and and safety safety measures

measures in

in place

place at

at the Hyatt House

the Hyatt House hotel

hotel on April 26, 2011.

2011. Documents

Documents

reflecting reflecting Detective Detective Spencer's

Spencer's investigation

investigationof

of the

the sexual

sexual assault

assault of Plaintiff have previously previously

been been produced produced to to Defendants.

Defendants. Plaintiff

Plaintiff reserves

reserves the

the right

right to

to supplement

supplement and/or

and/or amend

amend this

this expert

expert

witness witness designation designation as as discovery

discovery continues

continues and

and additional

additional facts

facts and

and evidence

evidence have

have been learned

and and produced.

produced.

Officer Officer Isaac

Isaac Gloger

Gloger

Officer Officer Isaac Isaac Gloger-(972)

Gloger (972) 450-7100,

450-7100, c/o

do Addison

Addison Police

Police Department, 4799 Airport Department, 4799 Airport

Parkway, Parkway,Addison, Addison,Texas Texas75001-is

75001—isaa police

police officer

officer with

with the

the Addison

Addison Police

Police Department.

Department.

Officer OfficerGloger Glogerwas wasthe

thearresting

arrestingofficer

officerof

of Defendant

DefendantDeari

Dearion

on April

April 26,

26, 2011

2011 and

and interviewed

interviewed

Defendant DefendantDeari Deariatatthe

thecrime

crimescene

scenewhere

wherePlaintiff

Plaintiffwas

wasraped

rapedsuch

suchthat,

that,in

in addition

addition to

to testifying

testifying

with withrespect respecttotohis his expertise

expertise in

in criminal

criminal investigations

investigations and

and criminal

criminal conduct

conduct in

in Addison,

Addison, Texas

Texas

(of (ofthis this case case and

and other

other criminal

criminal cases

cases in

in Addison,

Addison, Texas

Texas from

from 2005

2005 to

to the

the present)-

present)— Officer

Officer

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'STEX.

TEX.R.R.elv.

CIV.P.P.194.2(F)

194.2(F)EXPERT

EXPERTWITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS 16 OF 20 PAGE160F20 PAGE

Gloger is also a percipient witness of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the sexual

assault on Plaintiff and the lack of security and safety measures in place at the Hyatt House hotel

on April 26, 2011. Documents reflecting Officer Gloger's investigation of the sexual assault of

Plaintiff have previously been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement

and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional facts and

evidence have been learned and produced.

Mr. Kenneth Sherman

Mr. Kenneth Sherman-(817) 652-5912, c/o Arlington Regional Office of Texas

Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 2225 East Randol Mill Road, Suite 200, Arlington, Texas

76011-is a licensed peace officer in the State of Texas and is employed by the Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission as an Enforcement Agent. Mr. Sherman investigated the violations of the

Texas Alcoholic and Beverage Code committed by Pastazios Pizza, Inc., as well as photographed

the "common area" shared between Post and Pastazios Pizza on which Plaintiff became

obviously intoxicated, as well as interviewed Plaintiff, Defendant Deari, and Defendant Kreka.

Mr. Sherman may testify as to his personal knowledge of the facts of this case (including his

investigation), as well as based upon his skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training as

to criminal and administrative investigations and violations of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage

Code (in this case and other cases in Addison, Texas from 2005 to the present), the standard of

care required of a business that knowingly and intentionally leaves its property open for the

public to consume alcoholic beverages on, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (in general and

as applied to this case), and the incidence of intoxicated minors in general, and those subject to a

criminal attack, in the Addison, Texas area from 2005 to the present (including the resulting

damages that arise therefrom). Documents reflecting Mr. Sherman's investigation related to this

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. elv. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 17 oF20 case have case have previously previously been produced

produced to

to Defendants.

Defendants. Plaintiff

Plaintiff reserves the right right to

to supplement

supplement

and/or amend this expert and/or expert witness witness designation

designation as

as discovery

discovery continues

continues and additional

additional facts

facts and

and

evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr. Allison Jeanne Brooks-Heinzman, Brooks-Heinzman, M.D.

Jeanne Brooks-Heinzman,

Dr. Allison Jeanne Brooks-Heinzman, M.D.—(512)

M.D.-(512) 324-9650,

324-9650, 313

313 E. 12th

1ih Street

Street #101,

#101,

Austin, Texas Austin, Texas 78701-is 78701—is a medical doctor who who is board

board certified in obstetrics obstetrics and

and gynecology.

gynecology.

Dr. Brooks-Heinzman Dr. Brooks-Heinzman was was Plaintiffs

Plaintiff's treating

treating physician

physicianon

onthe

the night

night of April

April 26, 2011

2011 after

after

Plaintiff Plaintiff was sexually assaulted was sexually assaulted at Hyatt House at the Hyatt House hotel

hotel and

and subsequently

subsequently transferred

transferred to

Parkland Parkland Hospital Hospital for testing, treatment, for testing, treatment, and evaluation.

evaluation. Dr. Brooks-Heinzman Brooks-Heinzman may testify—

testify-

based upon her perceptions and skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training—about education, experience, training-about her

treatment treatment of of Plaintiff (including

(including the

the results

results of

of any

any tests

tests conducted

conducted during,

during, or

or as

as a result of, said

treatment), treatment), Plaintiff Plaintiff'ss physical,

physical, mental,

mental, physiological,

physiological, and

and psychological

psychological condition

condition of the night

of April April 26, 2011, obstetrics obstetrics and gynecology gynecology in general,

general, and the physical, physical, emotional,

emotional, mental,

mental,

social, social, and and biological biological effects

effects and

and trauma

trauma associated

associated with

with rape

rape victims

victims and

and rape

rape victims

victims who

who are

are

infected infected with with an an incurable

incurable sexually

sexually transmitted

transmitted disease

disease during

during the

the course

course of

of the

the rape.

rape. Documents

Documents

(as (as well well as an executed executed HIPAA

HIPAA authorization)

authorization) reflecting reflecting Dr.

Dr. Brooks-Heinzman'

Brooks-Heinzman's treatment of s treatment of

Plaintiff Plaintiff in in this

this case

case have

have previously

previously been

been produced

produced to

to Defendants.

Defendants. Plaintiff

Plaintiff reserves

reserves the

the right

right to

to

supplement supplement and/or and/or amend

amend this

this expert

expert witness

witness designation

designation as

as discovery

discovery continues

continues and additional

additional

facts facts and and evidence evidence have

have been

been learned

learned and

and produced.

produced.

Dr. Dustin Dr. Dustin B.

B. Manders,

Manders, M.D.

M.D.

Dr. Dr. Dustin Dustin B.

B. Manders, M.D.-(214) 648-3639, Manders, M.D.—(214) 648-3639, c/o c/o University

University of Texas

Texas Southwestern,

Southwestern,

5323 5323 Harry Harry Hines Hines Boulevard,

Boulevard, Dallas,

Dallas, Texas

Texas 75390-is

75390 is aa medical

medical doctor

doctor who

who isis board

board certified

certified in

in

obstetrics obstetricsand andgynecology.

gynecology.Dr.

Dr.Manders

Manderswas

wasPlaintiffs

Plaintiff's treating

treatingphysician

physician on

on May

May 6,

6, 2011

2011 when

when

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F) EXPERT

EXPERT WITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE18 PAGE 18oF20

OF 20

Plaintiff returned to Parkland Hospital with a "chief Plaintiff "chief complaint" that "it "it feels

feels like

like someone

someone hit

hit me

me

crotch with aa hammer in the crotch hammer covered covered in

in razors."

razors." Dr.

Dr. Manders

Manders diagnosed

diagnosed subsequently

subsequently diagnosed

diagnosed

Plaintiff with Plaintiff "primary outbreak"

with a "primary outbreak" of of herpes.

herpes. Dr.

Dr. Manders

Manders may

may testify—based

testify-based upon

upon his

his

perceptions and skill, knowledge, perceptions knowledge, education, education, experience,

experience, and training—about training-about his treatment of of

Plaintiff (including (including the

the results

results of any tests conducted conducted during,

during, or as a result

result of,

of, said

said treatment),

treatment),

Plaintiff s physical, Plaintiff's physical, mental, mental, physiological,

physiological, and

and psychological

psychologicalcondition

conditionon

on May

May 6,

6, 2011,

2011,

obstetrics and gynecology in general, the generally accepted incubation period from exposure to

outbreak of the herpes virus, and the physical, outbreak physical, emotional, emotional, mental, social, and biological biological effects

and and trauma trauma associated associated with

with rape

rape victims

victims and

and rape victims who

rape victims who are infected infected with an

an incurable

incurable

sexually transmitted sexually transmitted disease disease during

during the

the course

course of

of the

the rape.

rape. Documents

Documents (as

(as well

well as an executed

executed

HIPAA authorization)

authorization) reflecting reflecting Dr.

Dr. Manders's

Manders's treatment of Plaintiff in this case have previously

been produced to to Defendants.

Defendants. Plaintiff reserves reserves the

the right

right to

to supplement andlor

and/or amend this

this expert

witness witness designation designation as as discovery

discovery continues

continues and

and additional

additional facts

facts and evidence

evidence have been learned

and produced.

produced.

III. ATTORNEYS'

ATTORNEYS'FEES FEESEXPERTS

EXPERTS

Eric Eric Policastro Policastro and

and Tom

Tom H. Crawford 111-(214)

H. Crawford III (214) 855-6800, 855-6800, c/o

c/o Gruber

Gruber Hurst Johansen

Johansen

Hail Hail Shank Shank LLP, 1445 Ross LLP, 1445 Avenue, Suite Ross Avenue, Suite 2500,

2500, Dallas,

Dallas, Texas

Texas 75202—are the attorneys 75202-are the for attorneys for

Plaintiff Plaintiff and and expect

expect to

to testify

testify to

to the

the reasonable

reasonable and

and necessary

necessary attorneys'

attorneys' fees

fees for

for the

the prosecution

prosecution

of of Plaintiff Plaintiff'ss claims claims against

against Defendants.

Defendants. Plaintiff s attorneys Plaintiff's attorneys expect expect to

to testify

testify that

that the

the attorneys'

attorneys'

fees fees incurred incurred by by Plaintiff

Plaintiff in

in this

this litigation

litigation were

were reasonable

reasonable and

and necessary

necessary for

for the

the prosecution

prosecution of

of

her her claims claims against against Defendants.

Defendants.They

Theywill

willtestify

testifythat

thatthe

thetotal

totalfees

feesas

as well

well as

as the

the hourly

hourly rates

rates

charged chargedby by Plaintiffs Plaintiff's counsel

counsel were

were reasonable

reasonable in

in the

the State

State of

of Texas

Texas as

as well

well as

as in

in Dallas

Dallas County,

County,

specifically. specifically. They They will

willtestify

testify based

based on

on their

their education,

education, skill,

skill, knowledge,

knowledge, training,

training, and

and experience

experience

PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S TEX.

TEX. R.

R. elv.

CIV. P.

P. 194.2(F)

194.2(F) EXPERT

EXPERT WITNESS

WITNESSDESIGNATIONS

DESIGNATIONS PAGE190F20 PAGE 19 OF 20 in the practice of law as licensed attorneys in the State of Texas, their knowledge about this case,

and upon a review of the fee statements reflecting the fees incurred by Plaintiff. Plaintiff s

attorneys will further testify as to the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees likely to be

incurred by Plaintiff in the event that a jury verdict is appealed to the Court of Appeals and/or the

Texas Supreme Court, as well as the total number of hours worked in this matter and will offer

an opinion as to the total reasonable fee for said necessary work. Plaintiff s attorneys are familiar

with all of the pleadings and discovery transmitted by the parties in this case Plaintiff s

attorneys' resumes can be found at http://www.ghjhlaw.com/. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. elv. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE200F20

EXHIBIT A

CLAIRE E. BRENNER, M.D.

2241 Peggy Lane, Suite E.

Garland, Texas 75042

972-494-1155 (W) 972-494-6572 (F) 214-507-8339 (M)

PRESENT POSITION INFECTIOUS DISEASE PHYSICIAN FOUNDING PHYSICIAN OF CLAIRE BRENNER, M.D., P.A. - 2004 MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF INFECTION CONTROL - BAYLOR GARLAND HOSPITAL- 2003 BAYLOR GARLAND WOUND CARE CLINIC - 2006

PREVIOUS POSITION NORTH TEXAS INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTANTS - 8/1/2001-1/20/2004

HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES Baylor of Garland Medical Center, Garland, TX 2001-present Lake Pointe Medical Center, Rowlett, TX 2008-present Presbyterian Hospital of Rockwall, Rockwall, TX 2008-present Forest Park Medical Center, Dallas, TX 2010-present Kindred Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, TX 2013-present Methodist Hospital for Surgery, Addison, TX 2012-present Methodist Richardson Medical Center, Richardson, TX 2013-present

EDUCATION 1996 M.D. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School - Dallas, Texas 1991 B.S. University of Texas at San Antonio, Major: Biology

POSTGRADUATE TRAINING 1999-2001 Infectious Diseases Fellowship, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 1997-1999 Residency, Depart. of Internal Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 1996-1997 Internship, Depart. of Internal Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

MEDICAL LICENSURE AND BOARD CERTIFICATION Board Certified, Infectious Disease - October 2001; Recertification-, Infectious Disease - 2012 Board Certified, Internal Medicine - August 1999 - Certificate # 1945635; Recertification, Internal Medicine -1999 Certification of Attendance Principles of Wound Healing and Hyperbaric Medicine - 2006 Texas Medical License - #L1533 United States Medical Licensing Exam - July 1998

HONORS AND AWARDS Medical School Class Rank: Top 20% Southwestern Medical Foundation Scholarship, 1992

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Infectious Diseases Society of America - 2000 Society of Hospital Epidemiology - 2003

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Histology Course Teaching Assistant, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School- 1995 Baylor Garland Family Practice Residence/Infectious Disease Rotation - 2004-present Podiatric Residency Program/Infectious Disease Rotation - 2007-present

ABSTRACTS 1) Warren RQ, Brenner CE, Holf H., Kanda P., Boswell RN, Kennedy RC. Characterization of longitudinal sera samples from HIV-1 infected individuals for antibodies reactive to gp160 synthetic peptides International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Third Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS, Clearwater, Florida. 1990.

2) Warren RQ, Holf H., Nkya WM, Brenner CE, Anderson SA, Boswell RN, Kanda P., Kennedy RC. Comparison of antibody specificities to HIV-1 gp160 epitopes defined by synthetic peptides in sera from infected individuals from Tanzania and the United States. International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Third Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS. Clearwater, Florida. 1990.

3) Shao JF, Holf H., Warren RQ, Brenner CE, Kennedy RC. Reactivity of HIV-1lnfected Individuals from Tanzania with an Immunodominant B-Cell Epitope on gp41. International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Thirds Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS. Clearwater, Florida. 1990.

4) Nkya WM, Warren RQ, Holf H., Brenner CE, Tesha J., Kanda P., Kennedy RC. Fine Specificity of the Humeral Immune Response to HIV-1 gp160 in HIV-1 infected individuals from Tanzania. Fifth International Conference on AIDS in Africa. Kinshasha, Zaire. 1990.

5) Warren RQ, Holf H., Brenner CE, Kanda P., Boswell RN, Kennedy RC. Decline in Antibody Reactivity to specific HIV-1 gp160 epitopes in associated with CD4+ cell levels below 200/mm in infected individuals. Conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 1991.

6) Hollingsworth RE, Brenner CE, Zhu X-L, Lee WHo Regulation of the RB Protein by the CDC2 cell cycle kinase.

The Symposium on Cancer Research. San Antonio, Texas. 1992.

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 1) Mapping the Antibody Reactivity to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Envelope Antigens in Infected Individuals, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1990 2) Preparation of Boc-threonine-4-oxymethyD-phenylacetic acid for use as a linker in solid phase peptide synthesis, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1991 3) Institute of Biotechnology, worked on DNA sequencing of tumor suppressor genes as a full-time research assistant with Dr. Wen-Hwa Lee, San Antonio, Texas 1989-1991 4) Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, studied the Humeral Immune Response to HIV with Dr.

Ronald Kennedy, San Antonio, Texas 1991 5) BMS Protocol A1455-135 ZEST QDAY-Phase IIIB, Open Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study Switching HIV-1 Infected Subjects with a Viral Load of <50 copies/ml on a BID Regimen or More Frequent Initial HAART Regimen to a Once Daily Regimen Including Stavudine XR, Lamivudine and Efavirenz. 2002

EXHIBITB

CURRICULUM CURR.ICULUM VITA

JOHN A. JOHN HARRIS, CPP, PSP A. HARRIS,CPP"

THGPREMISES THG PREMISESLIABILITY CONSl)LTANTS, LLC LIABILITY CONSULTANTS, LLC 1170 11 70 PEACHTREE STREET NE PI;:ACHTREE. STREET NE

SUITE 1200

1200

ATLANTA, GA 30309

GA30309

404.888.0060

www. thgconsulLcom www.thgconsult.com

John multi~disciplined background is the basis of his cornprehensiVe John Harris' multi-disciplined comprehensive approach to liabilitycor1sulting.

premises liability Mr. Harris is board certmed consulting. Mr. certified in security management (CPP)

(CP P)

and physical security (PSP) and is also a retired retired. Certified Public Accountant (CPA), (CPA). He

holds an M.S, M;S. degree in real real estate and a B.S. degree in accounting, accounting.

Mr. Harris; Mr. received his> Harris received his first experience in physical when he was training to physical security when

become a commissioned officer officer'in

in the United States Marine Corps.

Corps.

conducted over t1,200 He has conducted ,200 security risk assessments assessments of premises

premises including

including .multimulti

-

family,lbdging, family, lodging, resorts, resorts, casinO$,retail"offic casinos, retail, office, medical and indUstrial e, rneciic.aland industrial propertie$ properties located

located

in in 43 43 states states and and in Puerto

Puerto Rico,

Rico, the

the Virgin

Virgin Islands, and Colombia, Islands,andGolorn South America.

bia, South America.

Mr. Mr. Hprris Harris is is eXperienced

experienced inin developing,implem developing, implementing, managing and entir1g, managing and maintaining maintaining

physic~1 physical security security programs programs with

with personally-owned

personally-owned properties properties as

as well

well as

as fiduciary

responSibility responsibility asa as a general

general partner

partner in

in realestateinv8stm

real estate investments and as ents and as consultant

consultant to

to

developers, developers, oWners, owners, nianagers,

managers, and insurers of properties.

properties.

Mr. Mr. Harris' body of knowledge and experience in in premises security, real, estate, and re,al estate, and

accountihgcombin accounting combined ed w.ith with his

his forensic

forensic work

work in in mulU:'state

multi-statejurisdiotions

jurisdictions involving

involving varied

varied

types types of of premises premises, each each with j with its

its own

own set

set of

of facts

facts and

and circumstances,

circumstances, is is the

thebasis

basis of

of his

his

specialized specialized expertise expertise in

in premises

premises security

security risk

risk identification

identification and

and liability

liability mitigation.

mitigation.

A A court-qualified court-qualified forensic forensic security

security expert,

expert, John

John Harris

Harris consults

consults with

with defense

defense andand plaintiff

plaintiff

co 1.1 nsel in the civil dispute resohjtioll process reg~rding counsel in the civil dispute resolution prooess regarding premises premises liability

liability related

related to

to

negligence negligence and and third third party

party criminal

criminal 'acts

acts such

such as assault,

assault, homicide,

homicide, kidnapping,

kidnapping, rape

rape and

and

robbery. robbery.

AREAS AREAS OF EXPERTISE EXPERTISE Adequacy Adequacy ofof security security

Negligent Negligent hiring)

hiring,retention

retention and

and supervision

supervision

Workplace Workplaceviol.ence violence

January January15, 15,.2014 2014 JAH CV JABCV

Page Page 10f7

I. of 7

EDUCATION EDUCATION M.8,., Real M.S., Real. Estate.

E$tate

B.S., AcooOhting B.S., Accounting

CERTIFICATIONS CERTIFICATIONS Professipnal(CPP)

Certified Protection Professional Board Certified in Security Management by by the Professional Certification Board (PCB) of ASISASJS International, an ANSI accredited standards development wOrldwide membership of over 38 organization with worldwide 38,000

1

security professionals. This 000 ,security

designationi$ designation is,:~cknowledgE!

acknowledgeddas as theseCllrity the security profession's profession's highest

highest recognition of

practitioners Who have prc:tctit.ionets who hCiVe· demonstrated demonstrated cornpetenqYi competency in the areas of secllrity n thea,reas security solutions arid best business and buslrless practices.

practices.. Requirements

Requirements for for certification:

certification: passage

passage Of

of a written

awritteri

exam, exam, bachelor's degree from an an accredited accredited university and seven seven years of security

experience; Continuing education required experience. required for recertification.

recertification. Certified through 2014.

PhYsical Security Professional (PSP) Physical Board Board Certif'ied Certified in

in Physical

Physical Security byby the the Professional

Professional Certification Certification Board

Board (PCB) of

ASIS International. ASIS International. This technical deSignation is designation is awarded awarded to to those

those individuals Whose

whose

primary primary responsibilitie responsibilitiess'areto.condu are to conduct physical security ct physical security surveys, surveys, design integrated sepurity security systems systems ,and

and who h:ave

have demonstrated

dernonstrated in-depth

in-depth op,erations

operations knowledge andand competence in this area. R~quiretnel1ts competence in this area. Requirements for for certifici3tjon:

certification: passage of a writtetiexam written exam

and and five five years'experie years' experiencence in

in physical

physical security.

security. Continuing

Continuing education

education required

required for

for

recertification. Certified through recertification. Certified through 2015.

2015.

c~rtifi~d Certified Public Public Accountant (CPA)

(CPA)

Retired-Geor Retired — Georgiagia OPA008884 CPA008884

ReqUirements Requirements for for certificatioh:p as'suhiformCP certification: pass uniform CPA examination,, hold A;examination hold baccalaureate baccalaureate

degree degreefrom from an accredited university an'accredited with aa concentration university with concentration in in accounting

accounting orat

of at least

least

30 30 quarter or 20 quarter or 20 semester

semester hours-,

hours, and.

and, aa two

two year

year or

or 4000

4000 hours

hours ofof continuous

continuous

experienoe experience inin public public accounting.

accounting, Continuing

Continuing education

education required

required for

for maintaining

maintaining

license. license.

PUBLICATION PUBLICATIONS S && PRESENTATI PRESENTATIONS O~S

"Findinga "Finding a RemedY'for Remedy for Renters",

Renters", TRIAL magazinepublished TRIAL magazine published by bythe

the Association

Association

of of Trial Trial Lawyers Lawyers ofof America

America CATLA).

(ATLA).TheThe article

article addressed

addressedpremises

premises liability

liability

issues issues inin multi-family multi-family residential

residential properties.

properties.(December20

(December 2002)02)

Appeared Appeared on onthe NBC's TOday

the NBC's showsegment Today show segment on

on hotel

hotel thefts

thefts(2007)

(2007)

Presentation Presentation"Using

"Using Experts

Experts inin SexualAssau

Sexual Assault Cases"ATLAannualc lt (}ases" ATLA annual onvention convention

InadequafeSe curity Litigation Inadequate Security LitigationGroup GroupandSchools:V

and Schools: Violence, Misconduct, and iblence, Misconduct, and

Safety SafetyLitigation

LitigationGroup,

Group, 'Seattle,

Seattle,WA

WA (July

(July2006)

2006)

Jahuary15, January 15,,2014 2014 JAH CV JAHCV

Page2.of7 Page 2 of 7

Speaker "Unique Speaker "Unique Issues Issues in

in Apartment. Cases", The National Crime Apartment Security Gases", Crime Victim Bar Victim Bar Association AssOCiation national

national conference

conference on

on Civil Actions for Criminal Criminal Acts,

DC (May 2006)

Washington, DC

Instructor on premises liability Instructor liability at an ASIS security seminar atan.ASISsecurity seminar in in Los

Los Angeles, CA

CA

(2004) (2004)

Designated 'instructor Designated instructor for the premises liability liability section

s.ection of the ASIS International International

Physical Security Council Physical C.ouncil professional professionaJ development program, "Managing Your Ybur PhYsical Security", Toronto, Canada (2003) Physical .

Guest lecturer on premises liability liability at the. Georgia at the Georgia State

State University Department of Justice, Atlanta,GA~.

Criminal Justice, Atlanta, GA. (2003)

fot a Dateline NBC segment on hotel security (2003)

Security consultant for

Interviews:

Security issues in lodging facilities fqr20120ABC for 20/20 ABC (2002)

(2002)

Parking lot crimes at "big-box retailers" for ABC's Good Morning America 20120 (2000)

and 20/20 (2000)

Security at hotels/motels hotels/motels,,haveheen

have been published, in several published in several issues of the Hotel Security Report

PROFESS.IONALM~ IVIBERSHIPS PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Institute of Arnericanlnstitute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

PubHcAccounfants (AICPA)

ASIS International (formerly the the American

American Society

Society for

for Industrial

Industrial Security

Security

International) International)

PREVIOUS PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS MEMBERSHIPS

Commercial Real Commercial Real EstateCounciljAS Estate Council, ASIS International ISlnternafional

Physical Physical Security Security Council,

Council, .EducationQ.ommit Education Committee, ASIS Internationql tee, ASIS International

Editorial Editorial Advisoty Advisory Board

Board ofof the

the Hotel/Casino/Reso

Hotel/Casino/Resort Security Report rt Security Report and

and the

the

School School Security Security Report,

Report, published

published byby Rusting

Rusting Publications,

Publications, Westbury,

Westbury, NY

NY

American American Hotel Hotel and

and Lodging

Lodging Association

Association

Atlanta Atlanta Apartment Apartment Association

Association

National NationalApartment Apartment Association

Association

January15, January 15,.2014 2014 JAH CV JAHCV

Page PageJof7

3 of 7

CURRENT POSITION CURRENT POSITION

THGPREMISES THG PREMiSES LIABILITY LIABILITY CONSULTANTS,

CONSULTANTS, LLC(2000-Pre LLC (2000—Present)

sent)

(LLC formation January 2014. Previously (LLC Previously sole proprietor, The Harris Group)

Group)

Consults on premises premisesliabiHty r~lated to risk identification and liability issues related and liability mitigation mitigation

Audits premises security security programs

programsfo(com

for compliance with security industry pUance'with

standards, guidelines and best business practices

Cooducts securityri~kas Conducts sessments security risk assessments

Determines appropriate countermeasure countermeasuress to be utilized in integrated security plans

Performs forensic evaluations to ,draW forensic evaHJationsto draw conclusions regarding regarding, adequacy of

premises.'securi premises securityty

Opines Opines on on findings

findings of forensic

forensic evaluations,

evaluations regarding

regarding threat

threat and

and vulnerabilities,

vulnerabilities,

reasonable reasonable .care, care, and

and causation

causation

Testifies Testifies as as aa forensic

forensic security

security expert

expert in

in civil

civil Htigation

litigation

PREVIOUS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE

LARRVTALLEY LARRY TALLEY & & ASSOCIATES,

ASSOCIATES, iNC.,

INC., ASSOCIATE (1994-2000)

ASSOCIATE (1994-2000)

Conducted Conducted prernisessecuri premises security risk assessments fy risk assessments

Determinecj Determined appropriate appropriate cqul)termeasure countermeasures s

Analyzed Analyzed crime crime to

to made

made determinations

determinations re,garding regarding foreseeability

foreseeability and

and produced

produced

demonstrative exhibits for demonstrative exhibits for testimony testimony and

and for

for exhibits

exhibitsto

to the

the record

record

Produ,ced Produced vv()rkil1g working papersfbr

papers fortestirnony

testimony and

and for

for exhibits

exhibits to

tothe

the record

record in

in support

support

of cOl1clusions of conclusions regafdingstand regarding standard of care and ardofcare and caUsation causation

Developed Developed crime crime analysis

analysis model

model

REITAAC, REITRAC, PRINCIPAL ANDDIREctOR PRINCiPAL AND DIRECTORpFANAL YTICS (1991~j994)

OF ANALYTICS (1991-1994)

Real Real estate estateinvestment trust (REIT)

investment trust (REIT)data data and

and analyses

analyses for

forWall

Wall street

Street investment

investment

banking bankingfirms.

firms.

Performanceindic~sdev~lop performCince ~d for indices developed forreal realestate

estateinvestment

investmenttrusts

trusts(REITS)in

(REITS) in

cot)junctionWith conjunction withthe theWhartpl1

Wharton EcooometricFo

EconOmetric Forecasting Associates(WEFA), recastihg Associates (WEFA), Janmuy-15, January 15,;2014 2014 JAT-1 CV JAHCV

Page49f7 Page 4 of 7

BOO SEIDMAN,DIRECTOR.OF REAL ESTATE CONSULTING (1990-1991)

Portfolios of r~alestate valued in excess of$2~5 billion

AkiNS SECURITY, OPERATIONS Tr{OUBLESHOOTER(1989-1990)

Security serVices including security guards

DIVISION ROCKEFELLER'GROUP, REAL ES.TATE CONSULTANT'(1986-1989)

Portfolios ofoffic~ buildings; apartments i industrial Jacilities,mallsishopping centers, and lodging facilities throughout the United States

EQUITY OWNER OF APARTMENTS (1979--1986) FIR:;T PROPERTIES, SH~REHOLDER (1979-1~83)

Real estateinvestl11ehts in apartments

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (1969-19.75)

Active duty -··1.969 -1973 Attained the. rank of Captain Awarded Certificate ofCbrnfnendation

RELATED TRAINING U.S~Army Physical 'Security Field Manual, FM 19·30,. published February 1:9(35, Unit~d States Marine Corps officer training. Implemented, supervised j

maintained and monitored physical security pl~ns developed from this training. Areas. of instruction and training included physical protection, perimeter barriers, protective lighting, alarms, lock and key systems, guard force .selection, and organization, training and supervision of guard force, vulnerability assessment, physical security surveys, and investigation of breaches of physical security. The principles of this military training form the foundation for physical security in the pubJiCandprivate sectors.

Crime .Prevention thrqugh Environmental Design (C PTED) course at the National Crime Prevention Institute, University of Louisville. The security concept taught here is expressed as: "The proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead toa reduction in the fear and incidence of predatory strangertostranger crime, as wen as, an ·improvemenl of the quality of life" . Law enforcemeht officers w6rl,dWide are sent tbthis program for security train ing~

Crime Free Multi-Housing program at the Albuquerque Police Department, Albuquerque, NM. This nationally recognized program is the model for communities. developing systems to reduce ilIegalactivityin rental property. It acHnioistE3rs a. t~ree pha~eprogram.forcertification 'ofAPD Certifi$d Crime Free Multi-Housing Designation for prbpertyowhers. This:program requires the oWners td'implementasecurity training prograrn L receive CPTEDtraining,.and establish a neighborhood watch training program. In addition, owners must meet

January-IS, 2014 JAHGV Page 5,0[7 the following the following requirements:

requirements: crime

crime free

free lease

lease addendurns,

addendums, tenant screening, screening, and

and

criminal. backgro.und criminal, background checks.

SECURITY COURSES

SPECIALIZED SECURITY Protection Course I, II'and Assets Protection In, aa.seriesof.security II :aild III, series of security management pr0S)rams programs (2011, 2005)

2006)

Assets·Protection Assets Protection Course I, Concepts Conoepts and and. Methods: Security Vulnerability, Barriers, Locking Barriers; Locking Concepts, Intrusion Ethic~,. Security Intrusion Detection, Ethics, Security Lighting, Lighting,

EmergehcyPlahning, Emergency Planning, Security Security Management, Security and the Law, Law, Workplace Violence, Violence\, Investigations, Investigations, Deception Detection, Detection,. OPTED, Access CPTED,.Access

Control. Assets Protection PrQtectic;>nCourse

Course II, Practical Applications: Financial Practic.aIApplioations: Financial F Forensic oren?ic

Investigations for Asset Recovery, Investigation$ R~isk Asse~smentand Violence Risk

RecoVery, Violehce Assessment and Intervention,. Interrogation Techniques, Executive Communication, Intervention, Commuhication, Internal Controls, Controls, Organizational Development for Security Professionals;

Professionals, Critical

Success Strategies for New Leaders, Leaders, Employment Law forthe for the Security Professional, Information Security, Security..

AssetsProtectiQn Assets Protection Course III, Functional Management: How to Become a Trusted Trusted strategic Strategic AdVisot,

Advisor, Strategy in in Action, Action, Business Continuity, Continuity, Standards,

Standards,

Crisis Management;

Management, Unleashing Potential, Unity and Unleashing your Leadership Potential, and Leadership. Leadership.

Security Officer Management (2007)(200,7)

C.ontractSecurity: Contract Security: Developing Decision~makihg Process, Developing a Decision-making Workplace.

Proces.s, Workplace

ViOlence Violence Planning

Planning and

and Response:

Response; Lessons

Lessons Learned from Vir~inia Learned from Virginia Tech, Tech,

Balanced~Liability and.

Contract Security: What's Fair and Balanced-Liability Insurance, Private and Insurance, Private Security IndUstry:

Industry; Trends

Trends and

and PerspectiV(3,

Perspective, ContraGt Security Standard~ Contract Security Standards andand Guidelines: Guidelines: Application

Application and

and .GornpHahce,

Compliance , Comparing

Comparing Apples

Apples to

to Apples:

Apples:

Understanding Understanding the

the Pros

Pros an'dConsofOutsourci

and Cons of Outsourcing, Contract Measurem·ent, n9; Contract Measurement, Performance,..based Performance-based Contracts, Contracts, and·

and Other

Other Quality Measurements, Measurements, Contracts:

Contracts:

Sharing Risk and Protectin~ Sharing Riskand Protecting Your Your Business,.

Business, RFPs:

RFPs: Developing

Developing Practical

Practical

BUsin~ssT()ols Business Tools that

that vvork

Work ,A

, A Legal Prospective:

Prospective: HoW

How To Manage a Cohtract To Manage Contract

Security Security Relationship

Relationship With

With aa Customer

Customer

CCTV: CCTV: From From ContractorstoCourtr

Contractors to CourtroomsoQms (2005)

(2005)

Using Using GCTV

CCTV to mitigate threat~ to mitigate threats and

andvulnerabilities

vulnerabilities at

at facilities.

facilities. Working

Working

knowledge knowledge bfthe

of the latest

latest equipment,

equipment, systems

systems,j and

and application

application technologies

technologies f()r

for

CCTV. CCTV Assessing digital video video applications and

and the

the selection

selection of of appropriate appropriate

systems. systems.

Physic~1 Physical SecuritY:Adv~nced Security: Advanced Applications Applications &

& Technology

Technology (2002)

(2002)

Understanding Understanding ofof emerging trends ~nd emerging trends and latest latest technology

technology in

in control

control systems.

systems.

Integrating Integrating physicalcomponents physical:components,1 staff, staff, and procedures for, cost effective for cost effective

systems. systems. Planning

Planning for

for perimeterbarriersyste perimeter barrier systems. Screening processes ms.Screening processes for for

January January15, 15,.2014 2014 JAU CV JAHeV

Page Page60f7

6 of 7

people, vehicles, and materials at sites. Operating systems, database management and enhancements to security control systems.

Fa~nity SeclJrity Design (20Q2)

Ihstruction ih design bffully-integrated physical security programs. Integration of mUltiple security syste.rns in layered effect including environm'ental security, infrastructure protection, building designs, interior/exterior layout, detections systems, structural barriers,access controls, communications. and CCTV assessment

Physical Security: Technology Applications (2001)

security Risk and VUlnerability Assessment, Conducting a Site Survey, IntrljSionAI.arms, Fire Alarms, Acce?s Control, CeTV, Physical aarriers and Perimeter Protection, security Personnel, CPTED,Secllrity Lighting SecUrity

j

Litigation, security Engineering

January 15,2014 JAHeV Page 70f7

EXHIBITC

RESUME Wednesday, February 1, 2013

Personal Information: Name: William E. Flynn Address: 100 Highland Park Village Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75205 Mobile: 214-202-7344 Fax: 214-902-1766 E-mail: weflynn@legalpsychologist.com

Academic History: Internship: 1977-1978, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Texas. PhD: 1970; University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Psychology . B.A: 1965; Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Psychology.

Professional Experience: 1978-2012: Independent Practice of Forensic and Clinical Psychology; Dallas, Texas. 1976-2012: Licensed Psychologist, Texas license #21400. 1999-2009: Consultant, Texas Department of Criminal justice, State Council for Offenders, Huntsville, Texas. 1996-2002: Clinical Committee, Survivors of Torture, Dallas, Texas. 1978-1980: Clinical Director of Psychology, Metroplex Clinics; Richardson, Texas. 1977 -1978: Clinical and Research Psychologist, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Texas. 1970-1978: Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas; Director of Graduate Studies in Psychology. 1969-1970: Instructor, School of Nursing, University of South Carolina, and Columbia, South Carolina. 1968-1970: Research Fellow, V.A. Hospital; Columbia, South Carolina. 1966-1967: Alcohol abuse counselor/research assistant, Georgia Department of Mental Health; Atlanta, Georgia. 1963-1965: Research Associate, Department of Otology, Henry Ford Hospital; Detroit, Michigan.

Memberships: American Psychological Association National Academy of Neuropsychology American Association of Correctional Psychology

EXHIBITD .Joe G. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR, CLCP

BIOGRAPH Y BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Dr. Joe

Joe G.

G. Gonzales

Gonzales is a Physical

Physical Medicine

Medicine & Rehabilitation Rehabilitation,, Pain

Medicine, Medicine, and

and Occupational && Environmenta Environmentall Medicine

Medicine specialist who

has practiced Medicine

Medicine in

in Texas

Texas since

since 1985.

He He is

is the President

President of

of the

theTexas

TexasPhysical

PhysicalMedicine

Medicine && Rehabilitation Rehabilitation

Institute, and

and the

theFounder

FounderandandMedical

MedicalDirector

Directorof

ofPhysician

Physician Life

Life

Care Planning,

Planning, LLC.

LLC.

Dr. Dr. Gonzales

Gonzalesisisaa licensed

licensedphysician

physicianininthe

theState

State of

of Texas;

Texas; he is

is

certified certified by the

the American

American Academy

Academy ofof Physical

Physical Medicine

Medicine &

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation,, the

the American

American Board

Board of

of Pain

Pain Medicine,

Medicine,and

and the

the

American American College

College ofof Occupational Occupational & Environmentall Medicine.

& Environmenta Medicine.

Dr. Dr. Gonzales

Gonzales isis aa Diplomat Diplomat of

of the

the American Academy of Pain Pain Management, Management, aa Designated Physician of Designated Physician of the the Texas

Texas Workers'

Workers'

Compensation Compensation Commission,

Commission, and

and a Certified LifeCare Certified Life CarePlanner Planner as

as

designated the Commission designated by the Commission on Health CareCare Certification.

Certification.

His Hisprofessional

professional affiliations affiliations include

include the

the American

American Medical Association, Medical Association,

the the Texas Medical

Medical Association,

Association, thethe Texas Physical Physical Medicine

Medicine &&

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Society,

Society, the

the American

American Academy of Physical Physical Medicine &

Medicine &

Rehabilitation , the Rehabilitation, the American American Congress

Congress ofof Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Medicine,

Medicine,the

the

American AmericanCollege

CollegeofofOccupational

Occupational &&Environmenta Environmental Medicine,the l Medicine, the

Mexican MexicanAmerican

AmericanPhysician's

Physician'sAssOCiation,

Association,the

theInternational

International Academy

Academy

of of Life

LifeCare

CarePlanners,

Planners,and andthe

the International

International Association of Association of

Rehabilitation . Rehabilitation.

Dr. Dr.Gonzales

Gonzalesearned

earned his

his M.D.

M.D. from

fromTexas

Texas Tech

Tech University's

University's Health

Health

Science ScienceCenter,

Center, and

and his

his Bachelors

Bachelors of

of Health

Health Science

Sciencedegree

degree from

from

Baylor BaylorCollege

Collegeof

of Medicine.

Medicine.

(f) PhysicianLife ()Physician Life Care Care Planning

Planning

America's America'sLeilding

Leading Ute Care

Life Planner

Care Planner

11550 11550IHIN10

10West

West

Suite Suite375

375

San

SanAntonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas78230

78230

Phone: Phone:(210)

(210)501-0995

501-0995

email: email:jgomd@physicia nLCP.com jgomd@physicianLCP.com

Page11ofof11 Page

Joe G. Gonzales oe G.F Gonzales MD, FAAPMR, FAAPMR, CLCP CLCP

CURRICULUM VITAE CURRICULUM SPECIAL TI ES SPECIALTIES

Physical Medicine Physical Medicine &

& Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation (Board Certified)

Pain Management (Board Pain Management (Board Certified)

Certified)

Occupational & & Environmental Medicine (Board Certified)

Life Care Planner

Certified Life

EDUCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

Texas Tech University

University Health

Health Science

Science Center

Degree: Doctor

DoctorOf

OfMedicine

Medicine

Lubbock, Lubbock, Texas 1980-1984

Baylor Baylor College

College of

of Medicine,

Medicine, Texas

Texas Medical

Medical Center

Center

Degree: Bachelor of Health Health Science

Science Degree,

Physician Physician Assistant Certification Awards: Henry

Henry D.

D. McIntosh

McIntosh Award

Award for

for Clinical

Clinical Excellence

Houston, Houston, Texas 1975-1977

Angelo Angelo State

State University

Department of Nursing

Nursing

Degree: Degree: Associate of Science & & Nursing

Nursing (R.N.)

(R.N.)

San Angelo,

Angelo, Texas

Texas

1971-1973 1971-1973

San Angelo

Angelo School

School of Vocational

Vocational Nursing

Nursing

Degree: Diploma

Diploma && Certification

Certification (Licensed)

(Licensed)

San Angelo,

Angelo, Texas

Texas

1970-1971 1970-1971

POST GRADUATE TRAINING POST GRADUATE TRAINING

Department Department ofof Physical

Physical Medicine

Medicine &

& Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

University Universityof

ofTexasHealth

TexasHealth Science

Science Center

Center

Residency, Physical Medicine Residency, Physical Medicine & & Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

San San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

1985 1985 -- 1988

1988

Department Department of Family

Family Practice

Practice

Texas Texas Tech

Tech University

University Health

HealthScience

Science Center

Center

(f) PhysicianLife ® Physician Life Care Care Planning

Planning

America's America'sLeading

LeadingUte

lifeCare

CarePlanner

Planner

Internship, Family Medicine Internship, Family Medicine Lubbock, Lubbock,Texas

Texas

1984 — - 1985

1985

11550 11550 IH

IH 10

10 West

West

Suite Suite 375

375

San San Antonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas 78230

78230

Phone: Phone: (210)

(210) 501-0995

501-0995

email: email: jgomd@physicianLCP.co jgomd@physicianLCP.com m

Page 11 of Page of 44 oe G. Gonzales TJoe MD, FAAPMR, MD, FAAPMR, CLCP CLCP

CURRICULU M VITAE CURRICULUM LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS LICENSES & CERTIFICA TIONS

Texas Medical Texas Medical License

License —

- Physician

Physician Permit

License Number: License G8135

Number: G8135

Issued: August

August 1985

1985

Physical Medicine

American Board Physical Medicine & & Rehabilitation

Board Certification Certificate Number: Certificate Number: 3039 Issued: May

May 1989

American Medicine American Board of Pain Medicine Board Certification Issued: 1994

American American College

College ofof Occupational & & Environmental Medicine

Board Board Certification Status: Active

Active Member

Mem ber

Issued: Issued: 1992

American American Academy

Academy of

of Pain

Pain Management

Management

Diplomate Diplomate 1992

Texas Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Commission

Approved Approved Doctor List Certification Certification

Issued: eRe-certified, 2009) Issued: 2003 (Re-certified, 2009)

Texas Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Commission

Certificate, Certificate, Maximum

MaximumMedical

MedicalImprovement

Improvement &&ASSignment

Assignmentof

ofImpairment

Impairment

Ratings Ratings Issued: Issued: 2003

2003 eRe-certified,

(Re-certified, 2009)

2009)

Texas Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Commission

DeSignated Designated Doctor List Certification Certification

Issued: Issued: 2003

2003 eRe-certified,

(Re-certified, 2009)

2009)

Commission Commissionon on Health

Health Care

Care Certification

Certification

Certified Certified Life

LifeCare

CarePlanner

Planner

Issued: Issued: 2006

2006 eRe-certified,

(Re-certified, 2009)

2009)

The The University

University of Florida & MediPro Florida & MediPro Seminars, Seminars, LLC

LLC

Post Post Graduate

Graduate Course

Course Study in Life

Life Care

Care Planning

Planning

Certificate Certificate of

of Completion

Completion

Issued: Issued: 2006

2006

PROFESSIO NAL ASSOCIATI PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ONS

American American Medical

MedicalAssociation

Association

Texas Texas Medical

MedicalAssociation

Association

Page22of Page of44

Joe G. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR, CLCP

CURRICULUM VITAE CURRICULUM Medical Society Bexar County Medical Texas Physical

Physical Medicine

Medicine &

& Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Society

American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation American American Congress of Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Medicine

Medicine

American American College

College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine Medicine

American Academy of Pain Management American Management— - Diplomate Mexican Mexican American

American Hispanic

Hispanic Physician's

Physician's Association

International Academy

Academy of Life

Life Care

Care Planners

The International Academy Academy of Life

Life Care

Care Planners

The International Association Association of Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Professionals

PROFESSION AL EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Physician Life Care Panning ,, LLC Physician Life LLC Founder & Medical

Medical Director

San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

2011 2011 -- Present

Texas Physical

Physical Medicine

Medicine &&Rehabilitation RehabilitationInstitute

Institute

President San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

1998 1998 -- Present

Hyperbaric Hyperbaric && Wound

Wound Care

Care Associates, P.A.

Associates, P.A.

President President San San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

2003 2003 -- 2006

2006

Christus Christus Santa

Santa Rosa

Rosa Wound

Wound Care

Care and

and Hyperbaric

Hyperbaric Center

Center

Medical Medical Director

Director

San San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

2004 2004 -- 2006

2006

South Texas PM&R South Texas PM&R Group

Group

Founder Founder & &Past

Past President

President

San San Antonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas

1987 1987 -- 1998

1998

Hyperbaric HyperbaricOxygen,

Oxygen,Inc.

Inc.Total

TotalWound

WoundTreatment

TreatmentCenters

Centers

Corporate Medical Director Corporate Medical Director San San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

Texas

1995 1995 -- 2000

2000

Warm Warm Springs

Springs && Baptist Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Network

Network

Hyperbaric Hyperbaric Medicine

Medicine&&Wound

WoundCare

CareCenter

Center

Medical MedicalDirector

Director

San San Antonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas

1995 1995 -- 2000

2000

Page 33 of Page of 44

Joe G. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR, CLCP

CURRICULU M VITAE CURRICULUM Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center NW Clinic NW Clinic&&System

System Outpatient Medical Director Outpatient Medical

San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

1994 - 1998 1994 1998

Rehabilitation Center

South Texas Rehabilitation (San Antonio's

Antonio's first Comprehensive Outpatient OutpatientPhysical

Physical Medicine

Medicine &

& Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Center)

Development & Development Medical Director & Medical

Antonio, Texas

San Antonio, 1987 - 1993

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Institute of San Institute of San Antonio Antonio (RIOSA)

(RIOSA)

Medical Medical Director, Physical Medicine Director, Physical Medicine & & Rehabilitation

Medical Medical Director,

Director, Spinal

Spinal Cord

Cord Injury

Injury Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Program

Medical Medical Director,

Director, Orthopedic

Orthopedic Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Program

San Antonio,

Antonio, Texas

1988 - 1993

1993

South Plains

Plains Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Center

(Lubbock's (Lubbock's first

first Comprehensive

Comprehensive Outpatient Physical Physical Medicine

Medicine &

& Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Center)

Center)

Associate & Active

Active Developer

Developer

Lubbock, Lubbock, Texas

Texas

(This (This Space

Space Left

Left Intentionally

Intentionally Blank)

Blank)

Page44of Page of44

EXHIBITE

JOHN A SWIGER, PH.D.

411 S.W. 24th Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207 (210) 434-6711 ex2499 FAX: (210) 434-0821 cell: (210) 861-2772 home office 210-694-9111 jaswiger@ollusa.edu

CAREER HISTORY/ACADEMIC

2003 - Present Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas Professor of Finance

1999 - 2006 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas Chairman of Accounting, Economics and Finance Department

1991 - 2003 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas Associate Professor of Finance Taught graduate and undergraduate courses in Finance, Investments, International Finance, Economics, Modem Banking and International Business. Received Tenure-1998

Summer 1991 University of Texas at Austin Summer 1992 Senior Lecturer of Finance Taught Investments in the MBA Program. Courses concentrated on investment valuation and included a section on the economic valuation of human life.

1976-1980 University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas Assistant Professor of Finance Taught courses in Capital Budgeting, Financial Management, Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management.

PUBLICATIONS:

Swiger, J., Hammons, R., Robinett, S., and Winney, K., "Management of Technological Change and Sustainable Economic Growth: Economic Factors (2011) Management of Technological Changes: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Management of Technolocial Changes, September 1-3, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

Swiger, J., Hammons, R., Robinett, S., and Winney, K., "Management of Technological Change and Sustainable Economic Growth: Economic Recovery (2011) Management of Technological Changes: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Management of Technolocial Changes, September 1-3, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

Swiger, J., Winney, K., and Bender, B.," IFRS Convergence: A Crossroads For Post Secondary Accounting Education Programs" (2010) Quality Management in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (pp.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J. & Mudge, S. (2008). The Effect of Higher Education on Human Capital Formation: A Multinational study. The International Journal ofLearning, 15(9), 227-236.

Swiger, J., Mudge, S., & Wise, S. (2008). U.S. and European Trends that Impact Human Capital Formation through Higher Education, Part 1: Rising Enrollment and Rising Costs of Higher Education. Quality Management in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (pp.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J., Mudge, S., & Wise, S. (2008). U.S. and European Trends that Impact Human capital Formation through Higher Education, Part 2: Human capital Formation Through Higher Education. Quality Management in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (pp.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J., Mudge, S., & Pennington, A. (2007). Combating Capital Flight Facilitated by Illegal Money Laundering - Challenges and Strategies: Part I: Rising Incidence and Excessive Costs. In N. Badea and C. Rusu (Eds.), Management of Technological Changes: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Management of Technological Changes - Volume 1 (pp. 145-150). Alexandroupolis, Greece: Democritus University of Thrace.

Swiger, J., Pennington, A., & Mudge, S. (2007). Combating Capital Flight Facilitated by Illegal Money Laundering - Challenges and Strategies: Part II: Legislative and Technological Responses. Management ofTechnological changes: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Management of Technological Changes - Volume 1 (pp. 139-144). Alexandroupolis, Greece: Democritus University of Thrace.

Swiger, John & Mudge, Susan, "Managing Trends That Impact Human Capital Formation Through Higher Education, Part I: Rising Enrollment and Rising Costs of Higher Education" Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education, held in Sinaia, Romania, June 9-10, 2006.

Swiger, John & Mudge, Susan, "Managing Trends That Impact Human Capital Formation Through Higher Education, Part II: Preserving the Benefits of Human Capital Formation" Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education, held in Sinaia, Romania, June 9-10, 2006.

Swiger, John & Maloney, Tim, "A Reexamination of the Value ofa Homemaker Necessitated by Legal, Demographic and Business Changes and Trends-Part I" Proceedings at the 4th Management of Technological Changes Conference in Chaina, Crete, Greece, August 2005.

3

Swiger, John & Maloney, Tim, "A Reexamination of the Value of a Homemaker Necessitated by Legal, Demographic and Business Changes and Trends-Part II" Proceedings at the 4th Management of Technological Changes Conference in Chaina, Crete, Greece, August 2005.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Kent C., "Analysis of the Department of Justice Regulations for the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund." Journal ofAir Law and Commerce,67(1). (Winter 2002). Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Kent C., "Analysis of the Department of Justice Regulations for the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund." Lawyer Pilots Bar Association Journal, XXIV No.1, Spring. 2002.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Charles F. "Proving Damages for Foreign Litigants."

New York Bar Journal, July, 1997.

Swiger, John & Klaus, Allen. "Capital Budgeting Guidelines for the Small Private University." Business Officer, March 1996.

Swiger, John. Study Guide: The Basics of Investing. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1979.

Swiger, John, and Scott Jones. Simplified Forecasting Techniques for Finance and Industry. U.T.S.A. Continuing Education Department, 1979.

Numerous reviews of finance and investment texts written on an honorarium basis for the editors of McGraw-Hill, Wiley/Hamilton, and West Educational Publishing.

WORKING PAPERS

"Determining Economic Damages for the High Income Executive"

PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS

"Successful Handling of Wrongful Death Cases in Texas" a presentation conducted for attorneys and sponsored by Lorman Education Service. Dallas, Texas, July 27,2004.

"An Economic Analysis of the Department of Justice Victim Compensation Fund." Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 2002 Annual meeting, June 14,2002.

"The Airline Industry: A Time for Maximum Pessimism?" Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 2002 Annual meeting, June 14, 2002.

"What Every Trial Attorney Should Know About Proving Economic Damages." A presentation to the Bexar County Women's Bar Association. October 20,2000.

4

"Financial Analysis and Credit Evaluation." Prepared expressly for and presented to the senior marketing staff of Fairchild Aviation, San Antonio, Texas on March 17, 1995.

"Proving Economic Damages for Litigants of Mexican Citizenry." A research paper presented at the Western Economic Association International Conference, San Diego, California, on July 6, 1995.

"Is a Minimum Wage Increase Justified?" A seminar at the First Friday Forum, KLRN Studio, San Antonio, Texas, February 3, 1995.

"Proving Damages for Foreign Litigants." Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 1993 Annual meeting, June 18, 1993.

Conducted seminars in Financial Forecasting for U.T.S.A. Continuing Education Department.

Conducted seminars in Financial Statement Analysis for the Small Business Administration.

MEDIA INTERVIEWS Interview with KENS TV regarding the impact of the Toyota recall on the San Antonio Toyota Tundra Manufacturing Plant, February 2010.

Numerous interviews with business reporters from the San Antonio Express-News radio talk shows and television news programs regarding issues ranging from minimum wage legislation to stock market activity to the closing of Kelly Air Force Base.

EDUCATION

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ph.D. 1976 Major: Finance Minor: Management Thesis Title: Commercial Strategy and Performance and Financial Policy

University of Richmond, B.S. in Business Administration Major: Marketing Minor: Economics

CAREER HISTORYIBUSINESS

1990 - Present Business and Economic Consultant Provide economic and financial analysis to law firms, business firms and government agencies. Consulting activities include the determination of economic damages and losses in the following types of cases:

5

• Wrongful death and serious injury • Business Valuation • Business interruption and the abrogation of contracts • Sexual harassment, discrimination and wrongful termination • Tortious interference of business relationships and contracts

Other consulting activities include: • Feasibility studies for manufacturing operations • Valuation analysis for closely held corporations

Sample Clients: • Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack • Podhurst Orseck • Craddock Davis and Crouse • USAA • Mission City Management • Estate and Gift Division of the Internal Revenue Service

1977-1990 TNL Financial Inc., San Antonio, Texas President and Founder

Organized the firm in May 1977. By 1990, TNL comprised 34 vendors, 8,000 accounts, 18 employees, and $40,000,000 in assets. Administered day-to-day operations with emphasis in the areas of marketing, financial planning and control, and banking relations.

1968-1969 First & Merchants National Bank. Richmond, VA (now Bank of America) Credit Analyst

Trey Crawford 214.855-6866 (direct) 214.855.6808 (facsimile) tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com

July 3, 201 4

Via Email and Facsimile: 214-871-8209 Via Emmail and Faacsimile: 214-220-5252 Randy Nelson Ramon a Martinez Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP Cobb M artinez Woodward, PLLC Plaza of Americas 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Dallas, TX 75201-2832

Via Email and Facsimile: 972-584-6054 Samuel H. Johnson Johnson Broome, P.C. 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, TX 75074

Re: Cause No. DC-13-04564-L; Jane Doe v. Ajredin “Danny” Deari; Dritan Kreka;

Pastazios Pizza, Inc.; Island Hospita lity Management, Inc.; Hyatt Hotels Corporation; and DOES 1-25; 193rd Judic ial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Dear Counsel,

As I advised you all at the conclusion of the d eposition of Post Properties’ Corporate Representative on June 18, 2014 (i.e. – the last fact witness deposition in this matter), all of Plaintiff’s experts are available to be deposed at a date and time that is convenient for the parties and the witness. Since that date, I have not receive a si ngle request for dates to take Plaintiff’s experts’ depositions.

This is in addition to the invitation I extended at the May 20, 2014 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Jeffrey Fisher (while conferring in the jury room) for Defendants to begin taking the depositions of those e xperts whose opinions are not directly related to fact witness testimony of deponents not yet made available by Defendants. Once again, we did not receive a single request for dates since that time.

Instead, you have elected to file (or join in the filing) of motions to continue the trial setting – citing, as a basis, your inability to take the depo sitions of Plaintiff’s experts. Not only is this basis false, it is an excuse that has been intention ally manuffaactured by Defendants’ own conduct and discovery abuse that has been pervasive throughout this litigation. These issues will

GZJKDKV!;

July 3, 20 014 Page 2

be addresssed at upcooming hearinngs with the Court but, iin the interim m, I once aggain invite yyou to provide us with prooposed datees and times that you would like to take thhe depositionns of Plaintiff’s designated d experts.

Should you have h any queestions or conncerns pleasse feel free too contact mee.

Sincerely,

Trey H. Craawford

THC:ddtt

DC-13-04564

JANE DOE, Plaintiff (s), In the District Court v. of Dallas County 193rd Judicial

AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI ET. AL., District Defendant(s).

ORDER RESETTING TRIAL DATE

ON THIS DAY the Court notes that it was unaware of a vacation letter on file when it reset the trial date in this cause for May 26, 2015. Therefore, the Court hereby resets the trial of this cause for March, 24, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The remainder of the Court's September 24, 2014 Order concerning the abatement remains in effect.

SO ORDERED this Tuesday, September 30, 2014.

CARL GINSBERG, District Judge 193rd Judicial District Court

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JUDGE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

OF DALLAS COUNTY 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

February 24, 2015

ERIC POLICASTRO 1445 ROSS AVE SUITE 2500 DALLAS TX 75202

In Re: Cause No. DC-13-04564 JANE DOE vs. AJREDIN DEAR!, et al

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: Counsel for Plaintiff is requiredn±) notify all parties of new trial sett ilia

Please take note of the following settings: [The trial date in this notice supersedes all others.

However, the deadlines in the previous Scheduling Order control, i.e. just because the trial date may have changed, this fact alone does not change deadlines, as per the Court's Initial Scheduling Order.]

*ATI _PARTIES CALLED TO _DILLIL MUST APPEAR, CV ESS OTHERWISE &DEUCED THE caUla ADMINISTRATOR. Also parties are instructed to mark, exchange and discuss any exhibits to be admitted

Trial: July 07, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m.

Trial announcements must be made in accordance with Rule 3.02, Dallas Civil Court Rules.

When no announcement is made for Plaintittor the Plaintiff fails to appear, the Court intends to dismiss this ease for want of prosecution, under T.R.C.P. 165a and IN THE EXERCISE OF—FHE COUR'T'S DISCRETION PURSUANT TO ITS INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS CASES NOT DILIGENTLY PROSECUTED, and will hold a hearing at the time of trial on dismissing this case for want of prosecution .

Completion of discovery, presentation of pretrial motions and other matters relating to preparation for trial are governed by the Dallas Civil Court Rules. Copies may be obtained through the Dallas County District Clerks Office.

*Parties are to announce the Thursday and Friday until 10:00 a.m. the week prior to trial, ready/not ready fm'

length of time for trial, and the number of witnesses you anticipate calling.

For those cases with a Modified Uniform Scheduling Order in place, please note that nothing is affected by this notice except the date of trial. The Court still expects counsel to follow the schedule set forth in the scheduling order. To announce for trial call (214) 653-6998 Sincerely,

Aar 6:9421-

CARL GINSBERG, Judge 193rd Judicial District Court

Trey Crawford

From: Trey Crawford Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:33 AM To: David S. Denton Cc: Kymberlee Wright Subject: RE: Doe v. Deari, et al/msj hearings and raw data Attachments: PLTF003532 - 003534.pdf

David,

Please see the attached letter to me from Dr. Flynn. I have confirmed that all of Dr. Flynn’s “raw data” was produced to you in advance of his deposition. In fact, you questioned Dr. Flynn on most of it during the deposition. By way of reference, I refer you to the portions of Dr. Flynn’s file at PLTF001731-002311 which contains the “raw data” and scaled scores for Dr. Flynn’s evaluations of Ms. Doe. If there is something specific that you are looking for that you believe you do not have, please identify it with enough specificity for me to address the issue.

I am once again asking you for dates in which I can take Dr. Clayton’s deposition. This is my third request. If I do not hear from you by the end of business today, I will notice the deposition to take place at your office at a date and time that is convenient for us.

Regards.

Trey Crawford Partner

GRUBER | HURST | JOHANSEN | HAIL | SHANK 1445 Ross Avenue | Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75202-2711 214.855.6866 Voice 214.855.6808 Fax Email: tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com www.ghjhlaw.com

Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank is a Limited Liability Partnership formed under the laws of the State of Texas. This message (and any attached files) is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). This electronic transmission (and the documents accompanying it) may contain trade secrets, copyrighted materials, and confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message or files attached with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank LLP immediately by telephone (214-855-6800) and destroy the original message.

From: David S. Denton [mailto:DDenton@cobbmartinez.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:53 AM To: Trey Crawford Subject: Doe v. Deari, et al/msj hearings and raw data

Trey,

My calendar shows the msjs are set for hearing as follows:

Feb. 9 – Hyatt Franchising/Hyatt Hotels msj Feb. 16 – Fisher and Ink/Chatham msj Feb. 23 – Island/Grand Prix msj

Dr. Flynn generated “raw data” from his examination of Plaintiff, but I did not see it in his documents produced before his deposition. Raw data is generally defined as the patient’s specific answers, whether spoken or written, generated in drawings, or recorded by computers or other lab devices. See American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Ethical Standard 9.04(a) (2002) (providing that the term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists’ notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination). This raw data is contained directly in the tests materials, booklets and protocols that were administered to Plaintiff by Dr. Flynn. Let me know when I can expect to have the raw data to provide it to Dr. Clayton.

David

David S. Denton Cobb Martinez Woodward PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 220-5219 direct (214) 220-5269 fax ddenton@cobbmartinez.com www.cobbmartinez.com

CAUSE NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

VS. § §

AJREDIN “DANNY” DEARI; DRITAN § KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; § ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- § MENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS § CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE § FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND PRIX § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, LP; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-25 § 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE

Defendant Island Hospitality Management, Inc. (“Defendant”) files this Reply to

Plaintiff’s Response to Island’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe, as follows:

I. Background

Plaintiff filed her Response to Island’s Motion to Examine Plaintiff on March 24 at 9:03

p.m. In her Response, Plaintiff asserts two arguments: (1) Defendant’s motion is untimely; and

(2) Defendant has not satisfied its burden to prove good cause. As discussed herein, The

Response is unavailing because: (1) Defendant’s expert designation was timely, as was the

request for an independent examination; and (2) good cause exists for Defendant’s expert to

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 1 Document #135153 conduct an independent examination, and fundamental fairness requires that Defendant’s

psychiatric expert be allowed to examine Plaintiff when her expert has conducted an

examination.

Importantly, as an initial matter, Defendants’ counsel spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel

about the scope of the independent examination before filing the motion. Namely, the scope

of the independent evaluation would be limited to:

(1) a four hour clinical interview where Plaintiff’s history and personality disorders would be discussed; and

(2) a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -2 (“MMP-2”). 1

The scope of the proposed independent examination is far less intrusive than the examination

performed by Plaintiff’s expert.2

II. Arguments and Authorities

1. Defendant’s Expert Designation was timely, as was the request for an independent examination.

Defendants’ expert was timely designated pursuant to the Court’s December 30, 2014

order. Namely, the Court’s order states:

FURTHERMORE, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 30 days after the deposition of an expert designated by Plaintiff, the Defendants may designate experts testifying in response to opinions disclosed at the deposition.

Dr. Flynn produced his expert file on December 16, 2014. Defendant deposed Dr. Flynn three

days later on December 19, 2014, and Defendants designated their expert, Dr. Clayton, on

January 16, 2015. Shortly after Dr. Clayton was designated, Defendants requested that Plaintiff

1 The MMPI-2 is the most widely used and researched standardized psychometric test of adult personality and psychopathology. See http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/mmpi.htm 2 Exhibit A, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 45:14-16; Exhibit B, Dr. Flynn’s Invoice.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 2 Document #135153 submit to examination by Dr. Clayton trying to work something out without the need for the

Court’s intervention. Ultimately, negotiations about the independent examination broke down

– which required Defendants to file their motion for an independent examination on February

6, 2015.

Defendants’ request for an independent examination was timely. Plaintiff now contends

that Defendant should have known it would need an independent examination since Plaintiff

designated Dr. Flynn in May 2014. However, Plaintiff ignores that her expert designation does

not state that Dr. Flynn examined Plaintiff, hence Defendants did not have notice that they

would need to examine Plaintiff. In fact, Plaintiff’s expert designation states only that:

Dr. Flynn’s testimony will be based upon his skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training, as well as his review of the pertinent authoritative publications written by him and others, and the evidence, pleadings, and discovery served, produced, and/or elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree of professional, medical, and scientific probability and/or certainty.

Given the language of Plaintiff’s expert designation, Defendants were not put on notice that

their expert would conduct an examination on Plaintiff. To the contrary, Defendants did not

know Plaintiff’s expert conducted an independent examination until three days before Dr.

Flynn’s deposition when his expert file was produced. Of note, Plaintiff’s examinations did not

take place until August 2014 and September 2014, well after Plaintiff’s expert designation and

after Plaintiff alleges discovery was cut-off.

Defendants’ expert realized that an independent examination was necessary only after

Defendants deposed Plaintiff’s expert on his independent examination of Plaintiff. And

Defendants moved quickly for an independent examination after Plaintiff rejected their

request. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for an independent examination is timely.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 3 Document #135153 2. Good Cause exists for this Court to order an independent examination and fundamental fairness requires that Defendant’s expert be allowed to examine Plaintiff.

First, Plaintiff’s expert testified that his raw data was based on his subjective

interpretation of Plaintiff’s responses to his questions. Specifically, Dr. Flynn testified as

follows:

Q.· ·(BY MR. DENTON)· Similarly, I'm looking at this 21· very first sentence on that paragraph, and it says, 22· Ultimately, the clinician must make a clinical judgment as 23· to whether a diagnostic criterion is met.· Now, would that 24· also mean that you have the judgment, the discretion to 25· find or not find whether a diagnostic criterion is met? Page 160 ·1· · · A.· ·It does. 3

Dr. Flynn further testified that some of his opinions are based on his subjective or clinical

judgment. Namely, Dr. Flynn testified:

Q.· ·Is it objective -- or is it objective data from 11· which you used in arriving at your opinions? 12· · · A.· ·It is mostly objective and some clinical judgment 13· or subjective. 4

Because Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions are partially based on his subjective interpretation of

Plaintiff’s response during his examination, the raw data produced from Dr. Flynn’s examination

warrants an independent examination by Defendant’s psychiatric expert.

Second, Defendants established the requisite nexus between the independent

examination and the condition in controversy. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recognized in

In re Transwestern Publ’g Relators Co., that “A mental examination by Defendants’ expert

3 Exhibit A, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 159:20-160:1.

4 Exhibit A, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 214:10-13.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 4 Document #135153

[psychiatrist] is likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence regarding the nature and

extent of her mental anguish damages, the bases for her injuries and the likelihood of her

suffering future mental anguish.” 96 S.W.3d 501, 507 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, 2002). Just like

In re Transwestern, a reasonable nexus exits in this case between Plaintiff’s mental condition

and the examination sought because Defendants’ expert psychiatrist’s mental examination is

intended to explore Plaintiff’s allegations of mental anguish as they relate to her inability to go

to college, explore other career paths, and otherwise live a normal life.5

Finally, the raw data provided by Plaintiff’s expert does not contain all the information

which Defendant’s expert seeks. In re Transwestern recognized that the information

Defendants will obtain from conducting their own mental examination is not likely to be

acquired by other means. 6 Reviewing Dr. Flynn’s raw data and Dr. Flynn’s deposition transcript

only allows Defendants’ expert to base her opinions on the information obtained by Plaintiff’s

expert. In order for Defendants to make their own analysis of the nature of Plaintiff’s mental

anguish and effectively challenge the opinions of Dr. Flynn, Defendants’ expert psychiatrist

needs to be able to conduct an independent evaluation of Plaintiff. The reasoning of the court

of appeals in Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neill is directly on point:

The minor has already been examined by her expert witnesses. Unless relators are allowed the requested relief, their expert’s analysis will be limited to a review of the minor’s records and the testimony of the minor’s psychologists. Relators’ expert would be precluded from examining matters not covered by the minor’s psychologists’ examinations and would be precluded from making his own observations. The trial court’s actions severely restricts relators’ opportunity to discover facts that may contradict the opinions of the minor’s

5 In re Transwestern, 96 S.W.3d at 507 (stating “Because the mental examination is intended to explore [Plaintiff’s] allegations of mental anguish as they relate to her termination, a reasonable nexus exists between her metnal condition and the examination sought.”). 6 Id. at 507.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 5 Document #135153 expert witnesses. In turn, such restriction severely limits relators’ ability to contest the minor’s claim for mental injury damages.

The ultimate purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, bot by what facts are concealed. Fundamental fairness dictates that relators’ psychiatrist be allowed to examine the minor; otherwise, relators will be at a severe disadvantage in the “battle of experts.” 7

It is impossible to obtain the desired information through means that are less obtrusive than

the independent examination sought by Defendants.

For the reasons discussed above, good cause exists for this Court to order an

independent examination.

III. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant requests that the Court grant their

Motion to Examine Plaintiff, order Plaintiff to be produced for a psychological examination

conducted by Dr. Lisa Clayton, and grant such further and additional relief to which Defendant

may be entitled.

7 782 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (citations omitted).

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 6 Document #135153

Respectfully submitted,

COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 220-5202 (direct phone) (214) 220-5252 (direct fax)

By: _____________________________________ RAMONA MARTINEZ Texas Bar No. 13144010 email: rmartinez@cobbmartinez.com DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: ddenton@cobbmartinez.com MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: mlast@cobbmartinez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 7 Document #135153

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record by e-service, email, certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 26th day of March, 2015:

Trey Crawford Dritan Kreka Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 5549 Big River Drive 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 The Colony, TX 75056 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Defendant Kreka fax: 214.855.6808 Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H. Johnson Randy A. Nelson Johnson Broome, PC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 700 North Pearl Street Frisco, TX 75034 25th Floor – Plaza of the Americas fax: 972.584.6054 Dallas, TX 75201 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Attorney for Post Properties Pastazios Pizza

RAMONA MARTINEZ MATTHEW E. LAST

DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ISLAND’S MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 8 Document #135153

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 4/14/2015 4:10:19 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

vs. § §

AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN § KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; § ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- § MENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS § CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE § FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND PRIX § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, LP; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-25 § 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.'S, POST PROPERTIES, INC.'S, AND POSTADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW COMES Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and

Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership and file this Joint Motion for Reconsideration to Examine

Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendants also request that Dr. Lisa Clayton's deposition be postponed until

the Court can rule upon this Motion for Reconsideration.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 1 Document #135813

I. Background

1. On March 27, 2015, the Court denied Island's Motion to Examine Plaintiff Jane

Doe. Island and Post file this motion for reconsideration based on the affidavit provided by Dr.

Lisa Clayton.

2. By way of background, Plaintiff sued Defendants for, among other things, mental

anguish and psychological-related damages as a result of an alleged sexual assault.

3. On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff designated a psychologist as a testifying expert, Dr.

William Flynn. In the designation. Plaintiff did notstateorgiveany indication that Dr. Flynn would

conduct an examination of Plaintiff.

4. On December 16, 2014, Dr. Flynn's file was produced, and it was learned for the

first time that he conducted a psychological examination on Plaintiff.1 The tests Dr. Flynn

administered to Plaintiff were the CAPS-DX, the Personality Assessment Inventory ("PAI"), the

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders ("SCID-1"), the Beck Depression Inventory

("BDI"), and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, Second Edition ("SIRS II"), and he

interviewed Plaintiff for a total of six and a half hours.2

5. On December 19, 2014, Dr. Flynn gave his testimony at a deposition, and testified

that his opinions were based upon and in reliance upon the examination.

6. On January 16,2015, Defendant designated Dr. Lisa Clayton as a testifying expert,

to testify in response to Dr. Flynn. Dr. Clayton has requested that she, like Dr. Flynn, be able to

examine Plaintiff to develop her expert opinions to further challenge Dr. Flynn's opinions.

* See Exhibit 1, Email from Kymberlee Wright producing Dr. Flynn's file. 2 Exhibit 2, Dr. Flynn's Invoice No. 13047; Exhibits, Dr. Flynn's Deposition Transcript Excerpts, Page:Line: 45:11-16.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 2 Document #135813

7. The scope of the independent examination be would be limited to:

(1) a four hour clinical interview where Plaintiffs history and personality disorders would be discussed; and

(2) a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -2 ("MMP-2").

8. The interview and MMPI-2 are intended to explore Plaintiff's alleged PTSD, and

other mental issues, as the alleged issues relate to the sexual assault that is the subject of this

lawsuit.3

9. The clinical interview will be no more than four hours.4 The topics covered during

the interview include identification of Plaintiffs symptoms, the history of Plaintiffs present

mental disorders, psychiatric history, medical history, family history, social history, sexual history,

substance use and abuse, and mental status examination (i.e., behavior, speech, mood, insight

and judgment).5 The interview will be held at Dr. Clayton's Southlake Office between Plaintiff

and Dr. Clayton. Dr. Clayton will take notes of the interview, and the notes will be made available

to Plaintiffs counsel and Dr. Flynn.6

10. The clinical interview allows Dr. Clayton to obtain information that is not available

from any other source than Plaintiff.7 In order for Dr. Clayton to have all the information to

challenge Dr. Flynn's opinions. Dr. Clayton needs to be able to conduct an independent

evaluation of Plaintiff. Unless Dr. Clayton is allowed to examine Plaintiff, her analysis will be

limited to a review of Plaintiff's records and Dr. Flynn's testimony and data.8 Without an

3 See Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Lisa K. Clayton, M.D. 4 See Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Lisa K. Clayton, M.D. 5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. 8 Id.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 3 Document #135813 independent examination. Dr. Clayton would be precluded from examining matters not covered

by Dr. Flynn, and Dr. Clayton would be precluded from making her own observations of Plaintiff.

Furthermore, without an independent examination, the Defendants would be restricted from the

opportunity to discover facts that may contradict Dr. Flynn's opinions. The scope of the

proposed independent examination is far less intrusive than the examination performed by

Plaintiffs expert,9

11. The MMPI-2 is commonly used and relied upon for clinical treatment, as well as in

the area of forensic psychiatry.10 Further, it is the most widely recognized tool to diagnose

genuine verses malingered or feigned PTSD within the forensic psychiatric community.11 The

MMPI-2 consists of 567 questions and takes approximately 60 to 120 minutes to complete.12 Dr,

Clayton will administer, score, and interpret,Plaintiffs responses to the questions.13 This test will

be used in collaboration with the clinical interview.14 The clinical interview is necessary to

interpret the results to the MMPI-2.15

12. The requested clinical interview and MMPI-2 would both provide additional

information relating to Plaintiff's historical, current, and future mental health symptoms,

diagnoses, problems, and treatments.16 For example, the requested examination would provide

information regarding the impact of the sexual assault that is the subject of this lawsuit on

Plaintiffs past and future mental health, events in Plaintiffs life other than the sexual assault

9 Exhibits Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 45:14-16; Exhibit 2 Dr. Flynn's Invoice. 10 Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Dr. Lisa K. Clayton, M.D. 11 Id. 12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id. 15 Id.

16 Id.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 4 Document #135813 that impact her mental health, Plaintiffs' mental health issues existing prior to or unrelated to

the sexual assault, and whether - and the extent to which - future mental health treatment is

needed.17 Such information directly bears on the alleged past and future mental anguish injuries

and damages that are at issue in this lawsuit. The requested examination is intended to explore

Plaintiffs allegations of mental anguish as they relate to her ability (or inability) to go to college,

explore certain career paths, and otherwise live a normal life.18

II. Arguments an^Authorities

13. The court may order the mental examination of a party or person under the

party's control if the movant shows good cause and either: (a) the party's mental condition is in

controversy;19 or (b) the party responding to the motion designated a psychologist as a testifying

expert or disclosed a psychologist's records for possible use at trial.20

14. Rule 204(c) provides there must be good cause for the examination. "Good

Cause" requires a showing of each of the following components: (a) the examination is relevant

to the genuine issues; (b) there is a reasonable connection between the condition in controversy

and the examination sought; and (c) it is not possible to obtain the information sought though

some other, less intrusive means.21

17 Id.

18 Id.

19Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(c)(l). ZOTex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(c)(2) 21 Cocftes v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 753 (Tex. 1988).

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 5 Document #135813 1. Good Cause exists for this Court to order an independent examination and fundamental fairness requires that Defendant's expert be allowed to examine Plaintiff.

15. As an initial matter, Plaintiff's expert testified that his raw data was based on his

subjective interpretation of Plaintiff's responses to his questions. Specifically, Dr. Flynn testified

as follows:

a (BY MR. DENTON) SimilarlyJ'm looking at this 21 very first sentence on that paragraph, and it says, 22 Ultimately, the clinician must make a clinical judgment as 23 to whether a diagnostic criterion is met. Now, would that 24 also mean that you have the judgment, the discretion to 25 find or not find whether a diagnostic criterion is met?

Page 160 1 A. It does.22

Dr. Flynn further testified that some of his opinions are based on his subjective or clinical

judgment. Namely, Dr. Flynn testified:

Q. Is it objective - or is it objective data from 11 which you used in arriving at your opinions? 12 A. It is mostly objective and some clinical judgment 13 or subjective.23

Because Plaintiffs expert's opinions are partially based on his subjective interpretation of

Plaintiff's response during his examination, the raw data produced from Dr. Flynn's examination

warrants an independent examination by Defendant's psychiatric expert.

16. Dr. Flynn continues to evaluate Plaintiff "as new information comes in", and

formulate opinions fortriai. During his deposition, Dr. Flynn testified that he has had subsequent

22 Exhibits, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 159:20-160:1. 23 Exhibits, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 214:10-13.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 6 Document #135813 telephone follow-up with Plaintiff and formed additional opinions about her prognosis on new

information that he received. Specifically, Dr. Flynn testified:

Q. (BY MR. DENTON) As you sit here today, the 12 opinions that you've told us about a few minutes ago,are 13 those all of the opinions that you have about Ms. Shields 14 in relation to the work that you're doing on this file? 15 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 16 A. I'd like to be able to give something rather than 17 a yes or no. Is that okay or not? 18 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Yes, sir. You answer - 19 A. Okay. 20 d All that I - the only deal that I have is - 21 A. Just asking. 22 d - that you answer the question, and then you can 23 say whatever you want to, okay? 24 A. Great. 25 Q. So just answer the question - 0088 1 A. So-so to the question you've just asked, and 2 the reason why I have said "at this time" is I've done 3 follow-up with Ms. Shields, and as new information comes 4 in - like, for example, she has said that things are 5 getting worse/ not better - it depends on what questions 6 I'm asked in the future as to whether I'll provide 7 something in addition to what I've already said. 8 For example, you didn't ask me - you asked 9 me what my opinion was, and my opinion - I gave opinion. 10 But you really didn't ask about is it getting worse, is it 11 getting better, how old is she,does she - so depending 12 upon what questions are asked of me, I'll simply give 13 honest answers to whatever I'm asked. Does that make 14 sense?24

a. The examination is relevant to the genuine issues in this case.

17. Plaintiff alleges in her lawsuit that she suffered and will suffer past and future

mental as a result of the alleged sexual assault.25 She is seeking punitive damage for these

24 Exhibits, Dr. Flynn Deposition Transcript, page/line. 87:11-88:14. 25 Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 7 Document #135813 injuries.26 In response to discovery, Plaintiff designed Dr. Flynn as her testifying expert and he

will testify about Plaintiff's mental anguish.27 Moreover, Plaintiff alleges a loss of earning capacity

since she was unable to attend college due to her mental anguish.

18. Through Plaintiff's pleadings, discovery responses, and designation of a

psychologist to testify about her mental anguish, she has made her mental anguish a central issue

in this case. As such, the evidence supports a determination that she has placed her mental

condition in controversy.28

b. There is a reasonable connection between Plaintiff's mental anguish and the examination sought.

19. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recognized in In re Transwestern Publ/g Relators

Co., that "A mental examination by relators' expert psychologist is likely to lead to the discovery

of relevant evidence regarding the nature and extent of her mental anguish damages, the bases

for her injuries and the likelihood of her suffering future mental anguish."29 Just like In re

Transwestern, a reasonable nexus exits in this case between Plaintiff's mental condition and the

examination sought because Defendants' expert psychiatrist's mental examination is intended

to explore Plaintiff's allegations of mental anguish as they relate to her inability to go to college,

explore other career paths, and otherwise live a normal life.30

26 Id.

27 Exhibits, Plaintiff's Expert Witness Designations. 28 In re Transwestern, 96 S.W.3d at 507. 29 96 S.W.3d 501, 507 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth, 2002). 30 In re Transwestem, 96 S.W.3d at 507; Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Lisa K. Clayton, M.D.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 8 Document #135813 c. It is not possible to obtain the information sought through some other, less intrusive means.

20. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recognized that the information obtained from

conducting an independent examination is not likely to be acquired by other means.31 This is

true in this case. Reviewing Dr. Flynn's raw data and his deposition transcript only allows

Defendants' expert to base her opinions on the information obtained by Plaintiff's expert. In

order for Defendants to make their own analysis of the nature of Plaintiffs mental anguish and

effectively challenge the opinions of Dr. Flynn, Defendants' expert psychiatrist needs to be able

to conduct an independent evaluation of Plaintiff.32 The reasoning of the court of appeals in

Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O'Neill is directly on point:

The minor has already been examined by her expert witnesses. Unless relators are allowed the requested relief, their expert's analysis will be limited to a review of the minor's records and the testimony of the minor's psychologists. Relators' expert would be precluded from examining matters not covered by the minor's psychologists' examinations and would be precluded from making his own observations. The trial court's actions severely restricts relators' opportunity to discover facts that may contradict the opinions of the minor's expert witnesses. In turn, such restriction severely limits relators' ability to contest the minor's claim for mental injury damages.

The 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. Fundamental fairness dictates that relators' psychiatrist be allowed to examine the minor; otherwise, relators will be at a severe disadvantage in the "battle of experts."33

It is not possible to obtain the desired information through means that are less obtrusive than

the independent examination sought by Defendants. Namely, Dr. Clayton is unable to observe

Plaintiff's reactions to the tests administered by Dr. Flynn and this data is not available through

31 Id. at 507. 32 Id.

33 782 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (citations omitted).

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 9 Document #135813 less intrusive means than conducting (a) a clinical interview lasting no more than four hours

where Plaintiff's history and personality disorders would be discussed, and (b) a MMPI-2.34 This

is because the raw data and examination records from Dr. Flynn were based on, at least in part,

his subjective interpretation of Plaintiffs responses to his questions. His data and records were

also based, in part, on his subjective or clinical judgment, including which subject matters and

events to cover or not cover. As a result. Dr. Clayton does not have all the data and records

regarding Plaintiff.35 For example, reviewing Dr. Flynn's raw data and Dr. Flynn's deposition

transcript only allows Dr. Clayton to form opinions based upon the subjective and selective

information obtained by Dr. Flynn.36 The requested examination would enable Dr. Clayton to

explore the opinions of Dr. Flynn and potentially discover additional facts that may contradict or

bear upon his opinions.37 For these reasons, good cause exists for this Court to order an

independent examination.

2. Plaintiff designated a psychologist as a testifying expert and disclosed his records for possible use at trial.

21. As discussed above. Plaintiff designed Dr. Flynn (a forensic psychologist) as her

testifying expert to testify about the psychological, medical, behavioral, educational,

physiological, vocational, and social trauma that Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of the

sexual assault that is the subject of this case.38 As such, Defendants have satisfied Rule 204(c)'s

requirements for obtaining an order to obtain an independent examination.

34 Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Lisa K. Clayton, M.D. 35 Id.

36 Id. 37 Id.

38 Exhibits, Plaintiff's Designation of Expert Witnesses.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 10 Document #135813 3. Dr. Clayton's deposition should be postponed until the Court rules upon this joint motion for reconsideration.

22. Dr. Clayton's deposition is currently set for April 17, 2015. In the event the Court

grants this motion, then Dr. Clayton will formulate additional opinions about Plaintiff after

the examination. In that case, Plaintiff will want to take Dr. Clayton's deposition again to

obtain Dr. Clayton's additional opinions. Rather than incurring the cost of two depositions,

Defendants request the Court postpone Dr. Clayton's April 17, 2015 deposition until this

motion can be decided.

III. Conclusion & Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendants requests that the Court grant this

Motion for Reconsideration to Examine Plaintiff, order Plaintiff to be produced for a psychological

examination conducted by Dr. Lisa Clayton, postpone Dr. Lisa Clayton's deposition until after the

examination, and grant such further and additional relief to which Defendants may be entitled.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 11 Document #135813

Respectfully submitted,

COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 (214).220-5202 (dirfct phone) (214)^0-5252..(dir^ fax)

BY:.

RAMONA MARTINEZ Texas Bar No. 13144010 email: rmartinez@cobbmartinez.com DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: ddenton@cobbmartinez.com MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: mlast@cobbmartinez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

and

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINGS, & IRONS, L.L.P. 700 N. Pearl, 25th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201 (214)?871-8228 (direct phone) (214^71-8209

"RANDY ^NELSON \^/^=sz^\ ss ^crK\^ Texas ^r No. 14904800 eln-attrrnelson@thompsoncoe.com SARAH L. ROGERS Texas Bar No. 24046239 Email: srogers@thompsoncoe.com

ATTORNEYS FOR POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POSTADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 12 Document #135813

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record by e-service, email, certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 14th day of April, 2015:

Trey Crawford Dritan Kreka Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 5549 Big River Drive 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 The Colony, TX 75056 Dallas/ TX 75202-2711 Defendant Kreka fax: 214.855.6808 Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H. Johnson Randy A. Nelson Johnson Broome, PC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 700 North Pearl Street Frisco,TX 75034 25th Floor - Plaza of the Americas fax: 972.584.6054 Dallas, TX 75201 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Attorney fqr Post Properties Pastazios Pizza

RAMONA MAF DAVID S. DENTON

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO EXAMINE PLAINTIFF JANE DOE PAGE 13 Document #135813

Exhibit 1

Matthew E. Last

From: Kymberlee Wright <kwright@ghjhlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:19 AM To: Matthew E. Last; Ramona Martinez; rnelson@thompsoncoe.com; Samuel H. Johnson (sam@johnsonlaw-pllc.com); srogers@thompsoncoe.com Cc: Trey Crawford; Eric Policastro Subject: Doe

Counsel,

Below is a link containing Dr. William Flynn's expert file, Bates labeled PLTF001731 - 002657.

https://www,dropbox.com/sh/wwc5iroBuaevd84/AAD25Ng9w4D4QU8omY7kliVZa?dl==0

Please advise if you have any issues opening the attachment.

Thank you,

Kymberiee Wright, Para legal

j I I I 1445 Ross Avenue | Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75202-2711 214.855.6875 Voice 214.855.6808 Fax Email: kwriflht@ghjhlaw.com www.ahihlaw.com

Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank is a Limited Liability Partnership formed under the laws of the State of Texas. This message (and any attached files) is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). This electronic transmission (and the documents accompanying it) may contain trade secrets, copyrighted materials, and confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any dtssemination, copying or distribution of this message or files attached with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank LLP immediately by telephone (214-855-6800) and destroy the original message.

Exhibit 2

Forensic and Clinical Psychology Invoice 100 Highland Park Village Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75205

Bill To; Mr. Erie Pollcastro -1445 Boss Avenue Suite 2.500 Dallas, Texas 75202-2711

Date Invoice No. P.O. Number Terms | Client 06/02/14 13047 . Net 30 |Sh lelds, Mckensle

Item Description Quantity Rate Amount Consultation ;onsultatlon with Attomey;l/2 Hour Case facts, 0.5 360.00 176.00 with Attorney teferral questions Date: record Review tevfew of Records: Medical, deposition, Peteti'on 4 4 350.00 1,400.00 iQura Date:S/2/14

Record Review review of Records:1 Hour, summarize medical, 1 350.00! 350.00 iepositton, Petition Date; 6/3/14 Consultation Sonsultatlon with Attorney &M. Shields: 2.6 2.6 350.00 | 875.00 with Attorney 4.ours, Interview, referal question of monetary images 'Date: 6/4/2014

Record Review review of Records:1 Hour, arrest report. 1 360.00 350.00 3ate:6/6/14

Record Review review of Records:2 Hours, Ted Miller, Social and £ 350.00 700.00 iconomic costs,..„„ Date: 6/14/14 Consultation consultation with Attorney Policgsfrorl/? Hour, o.e 350.00 176.00 with Attorney apptmt w/Shlelds, PTSD Qate:6/W14 Psychological 3sychotogical Evaluation: 2.6 Hours, SCID, PA1, 2^ 360.001 875.00 Evaluation ilstory, event, post event Date: Psychological psychological Testlng:1 Hours Date:8/24/14 350.00 350.00 Tasting Psychological :>sychofogical Evaluation: 1/2 Hour Date:a/26/14 0.' 350.00 | 175.00 Evaluation Consultation consultation with Attorney:1/2 Hour, Date: O.i 350.00 176.00 with Attorney Consultation Consultation with Attorney^ Hours, current finding 850.00 700.00 with Attorney Date: ConsultatiCtn Consultation with AttQmey.1/2 Hour, meeting Q.i 360.00 176,00 with Attorney w/economlst, Shields, costs Date:9/2/14

Total

Page 1

PLTF002050

Forensic and Clinical Psychology Invoice

100 Highland Park Villags Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75206

Bill To: Mr. Erie Polioastro 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 2500 Daltaa, Texas 752Q2-2711

Date Invoice No. P.O. Number Terms Client 06/02/14 13047 Net 30 Shields, Mckensld

Item Description Quantity Rate Amount 3sychological 'sychotoglcal Evaluation: 2.5 Hours, GAPS, score 2.5 360.00 875.00 Evaluation )ate: 9/2/14 Songultatlon ionsultaton with Attomey;1/2 Hour, CAPS 0.5 850.00 175.00 inrfth Attorney 3Eda:8/a/U consultation Sonsuftatlon with Attorney:1 Hour, Schwelger Date 1 350.0C 350.00 ift/ith Attorney 1/6/14 Inten/iew rrtervtew witness:1 Hour, Randall Shields, Date: 1 350.0C 360.00 witness )/12/14 Interview ntervl9wwttness:1/2 Hours 'Date;9/15/14; Robin o.e 350.0C 175.00 witness Shields Record Review review of Records:1 Hours Date; 7/17/2014; 1 350.0C 350.00 iVQon'KQ file

Record Review Review of Records;1 Houra Date: 9/22/14; create 1 350.0( 360.0Q sutllne

Consultatlan Sonaultation with AttQmey;1/2 hour, outline, fax, Q.£ aao.Qt 175.QQ with Attorney deposition Date: 9/24/14 Deposition Deposition 1 hour 350,0( 850.00 Record Review Review of Records:2 Hours Date:9/24/1 4, 350.01 700.00 deposition, medicab(2 (therapy)

Total $10.325.0C

Page 2

PLTF002051

Exhibit 3

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19,2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 1-4 Page 1 Page 3 1 NO. DC-1304564-L 1 APPEARANCES 2 JANE DOE, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Plaintiff, ) 3 MR. TREY H. CRAWFORD 3 ) Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, LLP vs. ) 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 1445 ROBS Avenue, Suite 2SOO 4 ) Dallas, Texas 75202 AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI ,• ) 5 214.855.6800 5 DRITAN KREKA; PASTAZIOS ) 214.BS5.6808 FAX PIZZA, INC.; ISLAND ) 6 fccrawford@ghjhlaw.com 6 HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, ) 7 FOR THE HOTEL DEFENDANTS:

INC,; HYATT HOTELS ) 8 MR. DAVID S. DENTON 7 CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE ) Cobb Martinez Woodward FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND ) 9 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 8 PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, ) Dallas, Texas 75201 LLC; INK ACQUISITION, ) 10 214.220.5200 9 LLC; INK ACQUISITION, II, ) 214.220.5299 FAX LLC; INK ACQUISITION, ) 11 ddenfcon@cobbmartinez.corn 10 Ill, LLC; INK LESSEE, )

12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, POST PROPERTIES:

LLC,- INK LESSEE HOLDING, )

13 MR. RANGY A. NELSON 11 LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, )

Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLC; CHATHAM LODGING, LP; )

14 700 North Pearl Street 12 JEFFREY H. FISHER, )

25th Floor - Plaza of the Americas Individually; POST )

15 Dallas, Texas 75201 13 PROPERTIES, INC.- and DOES )

214.871.8200

1-25, )

14 Defendants. ) DALLAS COONTY, TEXAS 16 214.871.8209 FAX

15 rnelson@thompsoncoe.corn

16 17 17 18 18 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ALSO PRESENT: Anthony Marlar - Videographer

19 WILLIAM E FLYNN, Ph.D. 19 20 DECEMBER 19, 2014 20 21 VOLUME 1 21 22 23 23 24 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM E. 24 25 FLYNN, Ph.D., produced as a witness at the instance of 25

Page 2 Page 4 1 the Hotel Defendants, and. duly sworn, was taken in the 1 INDEX

2 above-sfcyled and -numbed 2 Appea.i~g.nces Page 3

3 December, A.D., 2014, from 10:12 a.m. to 6;31 p.m. 3 Exhibit List.................................... .Page 5

4 before Carrie del Angel, 4 Examina.tion by Mr. Denton Page 6

5 Texas, reported, by machine shorthand., at the offices of s Examination by Mr. Nelson Page 206 6 Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, LLP, located at 1445 6 Exa.mina.tion by Mr, Cx'a.wford Page 210 7 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500; Dallas, Texas, pursuant to Texas 7 Furthei" Examinati.on by Mr, Denton Page 228 8 Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the 8 Fuz~the2* Exa.mina.tion by Mr. Crawford. Page 231

9 record, or attached hereto 9 Furfchec Examination by Mr, Denton Page 233 10 10 Further ExaTninafcion by Mr, Cra.wfox'd. Page 234

11 11 Signa.tu.Te and. Corrections Page 236 12 12 Rexiorter' s Ce3~ti£icat& Page 238 13 13 14 14 15 15

16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20

21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24

25 25

800.211. DEPO (3376)

S 0 1.. U T EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 5-8 Page 5 "Page 7 1 EXHIBIT LIST 1 the jury. 2 No. Description Page Page Marked Ident. 2 A. My name is William Flynn, F-1-y-n-n.

3 3 Q. And is it okay if I refer to you as Dr. Flynn — 4 1 Printout of LegalPsychologist.corn Web Site 8 8 4 A. It -

5 2 Handwritten Notes 11 11 5 Q. - today?

6 6 A. It is.

3 Invoice 16 16 7 7 Q. And you are a - you have a Ph.D. in psychology, 4 Handwritten Notes S2 S2 8 do you not? 5 The Forensic History Questionnaire 120 120 9 A. Yes, sir.

9 10 Q. Okay. And that's not a doctor in terms of an 6 Medical Center of Piano 10 Medical Records 130 130 11 M.D.,, a medical degree, correct? 11 7 User's Guide for the Structured 12 A. That's correct.

Clinical Interview for DSM-IV 12 Axis I Disorders 149 149 13 Q. Today you're here to testify as an expert 13 14 8 SCID-CV Diagnostic Summary 167 167 9 National Center for PTSD 14 witness on behalf of the plaintiff, are you not?

Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale 15 A. I am.

15 for DSM-IV Current and Lifetime Diagnostic Version (CAPS-DX) 174 174 16 Q.. And just to get started, I want to have just a 16 17 little bit of background. Have you ever given 10 Harold Neil Jacobson, M.D.

17 Patient Face Sheet S/23/2014 183 183 18 deposition before? 18 11 Texas Behavioral Health Systems, 19 A. I have.

PA Initial Psychiatric Assessment 187 188 19 20 Q. How many times have you given your deposition 14 BDI-II 8/18/2014 233 233 21 before?

20 21 22 A. I don't have an exact number, but somewhere 22 Reporter's Note - Exhibit Nos. 12-13 were inadvertently ski.pi36cl a.n.d not ma-rlcsd-

23 between 15 and 50. I know that's a wide margin, but I 23 24 haven't been keeping track. 24 25 25 Q., And all of your depositions that you've given,

Page 6 PageS 1 PROCEEDINGS 1 have you given them in the capacity as an expert witness? 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the record 2 A. I don't know what that means, but I think the 3 for the videotaped deposition of Dr. William E. Flynn. 3 answer's yes.

4 The date today is December 19th, 2014. The time is 4 Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way: Have you ever 5 10:12 a.m. The case is entitled Jane Doe versus Ajredin 5 been a party to a piece of litigation? 6 "Danny" Deari, et al. Today's deposition is being held 6 A. No. 7 at Gruber Hurst, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas. 7 Q. When you've given the 15 or 50 - between 15 to 8 Will counsel please state your appearance 8 50 depositions, were those depositions given by you in 9 for the record. 9 the capacity as a psychologist? 10 MR. CRAWFORD: Trey Crawford on behalf of 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 the plaintiff. 11 Q. Okay. Do you know anyone at Gruber Hurst before 12 MR. DENTON: Good morning. David Denton on 12 you were hired for this assignment? 13 behalf of the hotel defendants. 13 A. do not - did not. 14 MR. NELSON: Randy Nelson on behalf of Post 14 Q. Did you know McKenzie Shields before you were 15 Properties. 15 hired for this piece of civil litigation? 16 DR. FLYNN: William Flynn, psychologist. 16 A. I did not. 17 WILLIAM E. FLYNN, Ph.D., 17 Q. What is the name of your business? 18 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 18 A. William Flynn, Psychologist. 19 EXAMINATION 19 Q. And you have a web page, do you not? 20 BY MR. DENTON: 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Good morning, Dr. Flynn. 21 Q. I'm going to hand you what I've marked as 22 A. Good morning. 22 Exhibit No. 1. 23 Q. My name is David Denton. I'm here - I 23 (Exhibit No. 1 was marked.) 24 represent the hotel defendants. And, if you would, 24 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Exhibit No. 1 has a title of 25 please, introduce yourself to the ladies and gentlemen of 25 LegalPsychologist.com, does it not?

ESQUIRE S 0 i. U T I 0 M S 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 45-48 Page 45 Page 47 1 look at all the disorders of the DSM-IV. 1 them in? 2 Q. I tell you what. 2 Q. Sure. And all I'm trying to do is figure out 3 A. I- 3 when you administered the testing to - 4 Q. Let me - let's do it this way: The question 4 A. Okay.

5 that I have right now - 5 Q. - McKenzie Shields. I know we've got the

6 A. Yes, sir. 6 SCID-CV and the Personality Assessment Inventory. I'm 7 Q. - is just what tests did you perform, and we'll 7 just trying to figure out the other three. 8 talk later - I'll ask you some questions later about what 8 A. Okay. The BDI was administered on 8/18/2014, and 9 each one of those tests are intended to find, okay? 9 that is the Beck Depression Inventory II. The SIRS, the 10 A. Great. 10 Structured Interview Reported Symptoms was administered on 11 Q. So right now, the only question that I have 11 8/18/2014. The PAI was administered on 8/18/2014. And 12 pending is what tests did you administer to Ms. Shields, 12 what was your other question? I'm sorry. 13 McKenzie? 13 Q. The CAPS-DX. When was the CAPS-DX administered? 14 A. I administered the CAPS-DX, C-A-P-S, hyphen, 14 (Witness's microphone falls off.) 15 D-X;, I administered the PAI; I administered the SCID-1; I 15 A. Oh, I know we're not allowed to curse. Was

16 administered the BDI; and I administered the SIRS. 16 administered on 9/2/2014. 17 Q. Okay. And on Exhibit 3, it shows that you 17 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) And then you'd agree with me 18 administered the SCID, which is the one that we talked 18 that the SCID was administered as well on 8/18/2014, 19 about a moment ago, it's - it's the SCID-CV, and the 19 correct? 20 Personality Assessment Inventory, that was done on what 20 A. I don't - I don't know. Let me check.

21 you believe was 8/18/2014, correct? 21 Q. If you'd take a look at Exhibit No. 3 -

22 A. Yes, sir. 22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. And then when did you - when did you administer 23 Q. - under that one that was previously undated

24 the BDI-11 - and BDI stands for Beck Depression 24 that you said that - that, based on your notes, that you 25 Inventory, does it not? 25 thought that that psychological evaluation happened on

Page 46 Page 48 1 A. Yes, sir. 1 8/18/14? 2 Q. And then SIRS - SIRS-11, S-I-R-S-2 - and that 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 stands for - well, what does that stand for? 3 Q. Under that time entry for 2.5 hours, it does say 4 A. It - it would help me - my memory if - if your 4 the SCID, does it not? 5 question - if we did those one at a time. 5 A. Yes, sir, it does. 6 Q. Okay. The question I have pending right now is 6 Q. So on 8/18, if I understand you correct - your 7 what does the SIRS-11 stand for? 7 testimony correctly, you administered the SCID-CV, 8 A. It stands for the Structured Interview of 8 correct? 9 Reported Symptoms, comma, Second Edition. 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. And as an expert witness in the field of 10 Q. Also on 8/18/2014, you administered the 11 psychology, did you need that document to go to find out 11 Personality Assessment Inventory? 12 what the S I RS-11 stand for? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 A. No. 13 Q. Also on 8/18/2014, you administered the BDI-II, 14 Q. Okay. I didn't think so. I thought you were 14 correct? 15 doing that just for my benefit. 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 A. I was being helpful - 16 Q. And you administered the SIRS-11 on 8/18/2014, 17 Q. Thank you very much. 17 correct? 18 A. - which is always an error in this circumstance. 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. Just a question came up when I - when I saw you 19 Q. And you were able to administer those four tests, 20 go to it. Okay. When did you administer the BDI-11, the 20 conduct a history, discuss the event, the post event with 21 SIRS-11 and then the CAPS-DX? 21 Ms. Shields for a total time of 2.5 hours; is - 22 A. May I consult my notes? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And then just skipping over to Page 2 of Exhibit 24 A. So, again, multiple questions. Could you say it 24 No. 3, at the very top, that's where — the very first 25 again so that I can remember the sequence that you asked 25 entry on September 2nd, 2014, that reflects your

d ESQUIRE SO L U T I 0 N 5 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 85-88 Page 85 Page 87 1 breathing, all the internal organs operating faster than 1 MR. CRAWFORD: Object - objection, form. He 2 they should be. So she re-experiences the rape itself 2 is going to do additional work. I -- to be clear, I - he 3 because of the fierciveness -- the fearfulness of that 3 will be asked - 4 event. She also avoids her feelings and has what's called 4 THE WITNESS: I didn't hear. 5 numbing. 5 MR. CRAWFORD: He will be asked to do some 6 And finally, she is super aroused or 6 additional work. David, I'm not trying to - his opinions 7 hyperaroused. She has difficulty falling asleep. She 7 are not going to change from his designation, but as stuff 8 walks up in the middle of the night sometimes screaming 8 comes in, they'll be reviewed, and he'll - he will share 9 and crying. She has irritability and outbursts of anger. 9 that with other experts that he needs to share it, just 10 She has difficulty concentrating, and she's looking over 10 for fair notice, to the extent he's willing. 11 her--she is hypervigilant. She's looking over her 11 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) As you sit here today, the 12 shoulder a lot and - with what we call an exaggerated 12 opinions that you've told us about a few minutes ago,are 13 startle response. 13 those all of the opinions that you have about Ms. Shields 14 So she - to repeat, she has panic attacks, 14 in relation to the work that you're doing on this file? 15 depression, frequent and severe symptoms of posttraumatic 15 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 16 stress disorder, and these have affected her work, her 16 A. I'd like to be able to give something rather than 17 school and her social life. And finally, to make certain 17 a yes or no. Is that okay or not? 18 that these symptoms that she's reporting and the 18 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Yes, sir. You answer - 19 collateral witnesses have verified, in order to make sure 19 A. Okay. 20 that she is not feigning or malingering these symptoms, 20 Q. All that I - the only deal that I have is - 21 I've also tested her for feigning and malingering and have 21 A. Just asking. 22 found that she is not exaggerating or making up these 22 Q. - that you answer the question, and then you can 23 symptoms. 23 say whatever you want to,okay? 24 Q. Do you have any other opinions - 24 A. Great. 25 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection - 25 Q. So just answer the question -

Page 86 Page 88 1 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) - about Ms. Shields in relation 1 A. So - so to the question you've just asked,and 2 to your work on this file as an expert witness? 2 the reason why I have said "at this time" is I've done 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 3 follow-up with Ms. Shields, and as new information comes 4 A. At this time, I - I don't have any,but there - 4 in — like, for example, she has said that things are 5 but there might be some that I've forgotten about or - 5 getting worse, not better - it depends on what questions 6 but these - these are the main things that are impairing 6 I'm asked in the future as to whether I'll provide 7 her life. 7 something in addition to what I've already said. 8 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) The last two times that I've 8 For example, you didn't ask me - you asked 9 asked you questions, you've started with "at this time." 9 me what my opinion was, and my opinion - I gave opinion. 10 When I hear that, the question comes into my mind, do you 10 But you really didn't ask about is it getting worse, is it 11 have any intention of providing additional work on this 11 getting better, how old is she,does she - so depending 12 file to provide more or additional testimony — more or 12 upon what questions are asked of me, I'll simply give 13 additional opinions? 13 honest answers to whatever I'm asked. Does that make 14 MR.CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 14 sense? 15 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Do you understand what I'm 15 Q. Yes, sir. Thank you, Dr. Flynn. Do you have an 16 asking? 16 opinion that her conditions are getting worse? 17 A. Yeah,I do. Am I going to do further interviews, 17 A. I do. 18 further testing, call additional people, review additional 18 Q. What is that based upon? 19 records? No, sir. Again, I know you don't like the 19 A. That's based upon my initial interview and 20 phrase "at this time," but at this time, I have no plans 20 testing of her and then a subsequent telephone follow-up. 21 to do any additional work. 21 In the telephone follow-up, she said that she has fragile 22 Q. It's not - it's not whether I like it or not, 22 sleep, she has fear of being alone, that she - that these 23 it's just one of those things that I just want to make 23 fearful anxiety panic symptoms are set off by what she 24 sure that you don't have a present intention to formulate 24 calls triggers; namely, the smell of pizza, proximity to 25 additional future opinions? 25 the restaurant where she first started walking to her car

800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 157-160 Page 157 Page 159 1 clinician administering the SCID has subjective discretion 1 think'you may have it backwards — 2 to rate an item as present -- I'm sorry, as not present if 2 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Okay. 3 the clinician doubts that a symptom is present even after 3 A. - in that if I believe or the clinician believes 4 the patient describes it? 4 that a sym -- a symptom is not present and the patient 5 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 5 disagrees with us, I'm going to put down it's not present. 6 A. Can you help me understand — 6 Not the other way around. So if — if the - so - do you 7 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Sure. 7 understand what I'm saying? 8 A. - where you're reading that from so I can 8 Q. What you're saying is that, if the patient is 9 understand the question, please? 9 saying that a symptom is present - 10 Q. Yeah. If you go to Page 7 - 10 A. Right. 11 A. Yes. 11 Q. - but you believe it is not present - 12 Q. - and it's Bates labeled? 12 A. Right. 13 MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sorry, 7 in the same 13 Q. - you've got the subjective - 14 document? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR. DENTON: Yes. I'm still in the guide. 15 Q. - ability to say that it's not present? 16 MR. CRAWFORD: 7 of Exhibit 77 16 MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the word 17 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir. And it's Bates 17 "subjective" being inserted in that question. So I object 18 labeled PLTF1738. 18 to the form? 19 A. And where are you on Page 7? Which column? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Which paragraph? 20 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Similarly, I'm looking at this 21 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) Give me just a meant and I'll 21 very first sentence on that paragraph, and it says, 22 point you to the language. 22 Ultimately, the clinician must make a clinical judgment as 23 A. Sure. 23 to whether a diagnostic criterion is met. Now, would that 24 Q. Okay. On the very first full paragraph on Page 24 also mean that you have the judgment, the discretion to 25 7, it begins with the word "ultimately." 25 find or 3r not find whether a diagnostic criterion is met?

Page 158 "Page 160 1 A. Yes, sir. 1 A. It does. 2 Q. Let me read this to you, and then I'll ask my 2 MR.CRAWFORD: Object to form. 3 question, okay? 3 Q. (BY MR. DENTON) You can - 4 A. Okay. 4 A. It does. 5 Q. It says, Ultimately, the clinician must make a 5 Q. What module did you use to — to test 6 clinical judgment as to whether a diagnostic criterion is 6 Ms, Shields? 7 met. If the clinician is convinced that a particular 7 A. I used mood disorders. 8 symptom is present, he or she should not allow the 8 Q. Would that be mood disorder due to general 9 patient's denial of the symptom to go unchallenged. 9 medical condition or — 10 A. Okay. 10 A. Major depressive episode criteria. 11 Q. In rare -- in rare cases, an item may be coded as 11 Q. Which module is that? Is it under — 12 present everybody when the patient steadfastly denies it, 12 A. It's A. 13 e.g., a patient who claims that spending two hours a day 13 Q. A? 14 in a handwashing ritual is not excessive or unreasonable, 14 A. Module A. 15 yet if the clinician doubts that a symptom is present, 15 Q. Okay. Thank you. 16 even after hearing the patient describe it, the item 16 A. Sure. I used Module F. 17 should be rated as not presented. It is not necessary to 17 Q. Why did you use Module F? 18 get the patient to agree that the symptom is not present. 18 A. Anxiety and other disorders. 19 The question that I had based on that paragraph is isn't 19 Q. What type of disorders are you testing for under 20 it true that a clinician administering the SCID-1 has 20 Module F? 21 subjective discretion to rate an item as not present if 21 A. Panic attacks. 22 the clinician doubts that a symptom is present even after 22 Q. What else? 23 the patient describes it? 23 A. Agoraphobia. 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection, form. 24 Q.. Are you sure that's under Module F? Yes. I see 25 A. I understand the nature of the question, but I 25 that now. Okay. What else? It would be panic disorder

ESQUIRE SOLUTIONS 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 213-216 Page 213 Page 215 1 Dr. Hamilton administered a SIRS-11 test to Ms. Shields? 1 Q. (BY MR. CRAWFORD) I couldn't hear your answer. 2 A. I don't know. 2 A. I do recall that.

3 Q. Do you know whether or not they administered the 3 Q. All right. Was that instance something that you 4 BDI test to Ms. Shields? 4 specifically and in-depth discussed with Ms. Shields prior 5 A. I do not know. 5 to arriving at your opinions? 6 Q. What about the SCID-1 test to Ms. Shields? 6 A. Absolutely.

7 A. I don't know. 7 MR. NELSON: Objection, form. 8 Q. What about any of the tests that you took the 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm a little - I 9 time to administer to Ms. Shields? Do you know if 9 didn't hear.

10 Dr. Jacobson or Dr. Hamilton administered any of those 10 MR. NELSON: I wasn't talking to you. I was 11 tests to Ms. Shields? 11 making an objection.

12 A. I don't know. 12 THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. 13 Q. But you did? 13 MR. NELSON: I'm making an objection. 14 A. I did. 14 MR. CRAWFORD: He's just making an objection. 15 Q. And are those tests the tests that you performed 15 A. I understand. I like to hear what's going on in

16 on Ms. Shields regularly accepted in the professional 16 case someone is talking to me.

17 community which you're a partpf? 17 MR. CRAWFORD: That's all right. Do you mind 18 A. Yes, sir. These are reliable and valid 18 repeating the question, please? 19 instruments for the symptoms that I was testing for. 19 MR.DENTON: It was so good, you can't

20 Q. Did I ever suggest to you before you did these 20 remember.

21 tests that we want you to find anything about Ms. Shields' 21 MR. CRAWFORD: I'll repeat it. 22 mental state one way or another? 22 (Reporter starts to read back the last 23 A. No, sir. 23 question.)

24 Q. Even suggest it to you? 24 MR. CRAWFORD; I'll repeat it. 25 A. No, sir. 25 Q. (BY MR. CRAWFORD) Was the other sexual encounter

Page 214 Page 216 1 Q. What'd I tell you to do? 1 that Ms. Shields had with — I think he was Asian 2 A. You told me to look at what her emotional 2 according to the records in California something that you 3 condition was before the alleged rape versus after the 3 discussed with Ms. Shields and considered prior to 4 alleged rape. 4 arriving at your opinions? 5 Q. And did the methodology that you used to do that, 5 A. I did. 6 is that methodology consistent or inconsistent with 6 Q. Does the fact that it's referenced in some 7 regularly accepted methodologies from others in your 7 medical doctors' notes make you want to ask Ms. Shields 8 chosen field? 8 any additional questions or examine her further with 9 A. It is. 9 respect to that particular encounter, or does it have no 10 Q. Is it objective -- or is it objective data from 10 effect on what she informed you about that particular 11 which you used in arriving at your opinions? 11 encounter? 12 A. It is mostly objective and some clinical judgment 12 MR. DENTON: Objection, form. 13 or subjective. 13 A. I would like to know why she went to the 14 Q. And that's a part of any medical profession, is 14 hospital, whether her parents made her go, what the nature 15 the clinical judgment, correct? 15 of that was about - yeah, I would like to ask her some 16 A. Yes, sir. 16 questions. 17 Q. Let's talk about this - this other alleged 17 Q. (BY MR. CRAWFORD) Okay. And I'll -- I'll 18 statutory sexual assault - 18 absolutely afford you that opportunity. Have you ever had 19 MR. DENTON: Objection, form. 19 any discussions with Ms. Shields' mother or Ms. Shields 20 Q. (BY MR. CRAWFORD) - for a minute. You remember 20 about that particular encounter — or let me strike that. 21 when Mr. Denton was asking you questions about the other 21 Have you ever had any conversations with 22 alleged sexual assault? I think those are the words he 22 Ms. Shields or her mother or father about the reporting of 23 used. Do you recall that? 23 that encounter or whose idea it was? 24 A. Ida. 24 MR. DENTON: Objection, form. 25 MR. DENTON: Objection, form. 25 A. About -

ESQUIRE S Q L Li T I 0 N S 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19,2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 237-240 Page 237 Page 239 1 I, WILLIAM E. FLYNN, Ph.D., have read the foregoing 1 by the witness/ deposition and hereby affix my signature fchat same is 2 That the deposition transcript was submitted on 2 true and correct except as noted herein. 3 3 to the witness or to the attorney for the

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, Ph. D. 4 witness for examination/ signature and return to me by 4

5

THE STATE OF )

5 COUNTY OF ) 6 That the amount of time used by each party at

6 Before me, on this day 7 the deposition is as follows:

personally appeared known to me 8 Mr. Trey H. Crawford ~ 0 hours/ 25 minutes, 7 or proved to me under oath or through _ to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing 9 Mr. David S. Denton - 6 hours, 2 minutes, 8 instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the 10 Mr. Randy A. Nelson - 0 hours, 5 minutes;

same for the purposes and consideration therein 11 That pursuant to information given to the 9 expressed.

Given under my hand and seal of office this 12 deposition officer at the time said testimony was taken, 10 day of _ _, 2014. 13 the following includes counsel for all parties of record; 11 14 Mr. Trey H. Crawford, Attorney for Plaintiff,

12 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR IS Mr. David S. Denton, Attorney for the Hotel THE STATE OF TEXAS

16 Defendants,

13 14 17 Mr. Randy A. Nelson, Attorney for Post

IS 18 Properties; 16 19 I further certify that I am neither counsel for/ 17 18 20 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or

19 21 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was 20 22 taken, and furfcher that I am not financially or otherwise 21 22 23 interested in the outcome of the action. 23 24 Further certification requirements pursuant to 24 25 Rule 203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have 25

Page 238 Page 240 1 NO. DC-1304564-L 1 occurred. 2 JANE DOE, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT 2 Certified to by me this the 23rd day of Plaintiff, )

3 December, 2014.

3 )

) 133RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 C.^w, ^ifa^^'

vs.

4 ) s AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; ) 6 5 GRITAN KREKA; PASIAZIOS ) CARRIE DEL ANGEL, CSK PIZZA, INC.; ISLAND )

7 TEXAS CSR NO. ; 6036 6 HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, )

INC . ; HYATT HOTELS ) Expiration Date; 12\31\15 7 CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE ) 8 FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND I Esquire Solutions 8 PRIX FLOATING LESSEE, )

9 Firm Registration No. 286 LLC; INK ACQUISITION, )

9 LLC; INK ACQUISITION, II, ) 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 1000 LLC; INK ACQUISITION, ) 10 Dallas, Texas 75201 10 Ill, LLC; INK LESSEE, ) (214) 257-1436 LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, )

11

11 LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, )

LLC; CHATHAM LODGING, LP; ) 12 12 JEFFREY H. FISHER, ) 13 Individually; POST ) 14 13 PROPERTIES, INC; and DOES )

IS

1-25 , )

14 Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 16 15 17 16 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATION 18 17 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM E. FLYNN, Ph. D.

19

18 DECEMBER 19, 2014

20

19 20 I, Carrie del Angel, a Certified Shorthand 21 21 Reporter in and. for the- State of Texas, hereby certify to 22 22 the following: 23 23 That the witness WILLIAM E. FLYNN, Ph.D., was

24

24 duly sworn by the officer and that the transcript of the 2S oral deposition is a true record, of the testimony given 25

ESQUIRE SO L U T I Q N S 800.211. DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions, corn

WILLIAM E. FLYNN, PH.D. VOLUME I December 19, 2014 DOE vs. AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI 241 Page 241

FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP The original deposifcion was _ was nofc

returned to the deposition officer on

If returned, the attached Changes and Signature

page contains any changes and the reason therefore;

If returned./ the original deposition was

delivered, to , Custodian Attorney;

That $_ _ is the deposition officer's charges to the Defendant for preparing the original

deposition transcript and any copies of exhibits;

That the deposition was delivered in accordance

with Rule 203.3, and that a copy of this certificate was

served on all parties shown herein and filed with the

Clerk.

Certified to by me this _ day of 2014.

CARRIE DEL ANGEL, CSR TEXAS CSR No. 6036 Expiration Date; 12/31/15

Esquire Solutions

1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 1000

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 2S7-1436

ESQUIRE SOLUTIONS 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn

Exhibit 4

Apr 13 2015 9;48AM Dr. Clayton 8174163668 page 2

Cause Number: OC-13-04S64

JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

Plaintiff^ § § § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT §

ISLAND H05PITAUTY MANAGEMENT, INC.; § HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE 5 FRANCHISING, LL.C,; GRAND PRIX FLOATING § LESSEE, LLC; INK ACQUISITION, UC; INK § ACQUISITION (1, LLC; INK ACQUISITION III, § LLC; INK LESSEE, LLQ INK LESSEE HOLDING, § LLC; CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, LP.; JEFFREY H. FISHER, § Individuatty; POST PROPERTIES, INC.; POST § ADDISIQN CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; § PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; AJREDIN "DANNY" § DEARI; DR1TAN KREKA; and DOES 1-25, § §

defendants, § § §

s

fi DALLAS COUNT/, TEXAS

APFIDAVIT OF LISA K. CLArTON. M,D,

STATE OF TEXAS § &

COUNTY OF DAUAS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personady appeared Lisa K. Clayton,

M,D., who being duly sworn ypon his oath deposed and stated as follows;

1. "My name is Usa K. Clayton, M.D. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years/ have never b&en convicted of a felony, and jl am of sound mind. I am competent to testify to the matters stated herein^ The matters stated herein are based on my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

2. I am a medical doctor, and t hold board certifications in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. I have been designated as ai testifying eKpert in this lawsuit. The areas of my testimony are set

Page (of 3

Apr 13 2015 9;48AM Dr. Clayton 8174163668 page

forth in my expert designation. Among other subject matters, t wlfl testify in response to Plaintiff's psychology expert's opinions.

3, I have formed .opinions based upon my review of the file of Plaintiffs psychology expert, Dr, William Flynn, including the records and raw data from the mental examinations conducted by Dr. Flynn or at his direction. However, Dr. Fjynn's raw data Is partially based on his subjectlva Interpretation of Plaintiffs responses after observing her, and I would like to conduct my own independent examination of Plaintiff to contest Dr. Ffynr/s opinions based on my own observations regarding Plaintiff.

4, Dr. Flynn a^mlntstersct to Plaintiff the CAPS-DX, the Personality Assessment Inventory ("PAI"), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders ("5CID-1"), the Beck Depression Inventory ("BDI"), and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, Second Edition ("SIRS ff). AH of these tests are proprietary and copyrighted and can be administered and utilized only when they are paid for. While Dr, Flyn" administered many tests, he did not ad minister the test utilized to determine genuine verses mah'ngered or feigned Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") with a party in litigation. Hence, Or. Flyrm''s examination was incomplete.

5, The scope of my proposed examination is: (a) a clinical interview lasting no more than four hours where Plaintiffs history and personality disorders would be discussed, and (b) a Minnesota IVlultiphsslc Personality Inventory-2 ("MMPI-Z"), The Intervlswand MMPI-2 are intended to explore Plaintiff's alleged PTSD, and other msntat issues, as the alleged issues relate to the sexual as$ault that fs the subject of this lawsuit.

6, Ttie MMPI-2 Is commonly used and relied upon for clinical treatment, as well as in the area of forensic psychiatry. Further, it Is the most wfdely recognized tool to diagnose genuine verses malingered or feigned PTSD within the forensic psychiatric community, The MMPI-2 consists of 567 questions and takes approximately 60 to 120 minutes to complete. I will administer, score, and interpret Plaintiff's responses to the questions. This test will be used ir> collaboration with the clinical interview, The clinical interview is necessary to interpret the results to the MMPI-2.

7. The clinical interview will be no more than four hours. The topics covered during the Interview Include identification of Plaintiff's symptoms, the history of Plaintiffs present mental disorders, psychiatric history, medical history, family history, social history, sexual history, substance use and abuse, and mental status examination (i.e., behavior, speech, judgment, mood, insight and judgment), The Interview will be held at mySouthtake Office betwe|en Plaintiff and me. I will take notes of the inteirview, and they will be made available to Plaintiff's counsel and Or, Flynn. The clinical interview allows me to obtain information that is not available from any other source than Plaintiff, In order for me to have all the information to challenge Dr. Flynn's opinions, I need to be able to conduct an Independent evaluation of Plaintiff. Unless I am allowed to examine Plaintiff, my analysis will be limited to a review of Plaintiff's records and Dr. Flynn/s testimony. Without an independent examination, I would be precluded from examining matters not coverad by Dr, Flynn, and I

Pnge 2 ftf3

Apr 13 2015 9:48AM Dr, Clayton 8174163668 page 4

would be precluded from making my own observations of Plaintiff. Furthermore, without an independent examination/the Hotel Defendants would be restricted from the opportunity to discover facts that may contradict Dr, Ftynn's opinions.

8. The requested clinical interview and MMPI-2 woijld both provide additional information relating to Plaintiffs historical, current, and future mental health symptoms, diagnoses, problems, and treatments. For example, the requested examination would provide Information regarding ths impact of the sexual assault that is the subject of this lawisuit on Plaintiffs past and future mental health, events in Plalntrff's life other than the sexual assault that impact her mental health, Pteintlffs' mental health issues existing prior to or unrelated to the sexuat assault, and whether - and the extent to which - future mental health treatment Is needed. Such information directly bears on the alleged past and future mental anguish injuries and damages that are at issue in this lawsuit. The requested examination ts intended to explore Plaintiffs allegations of mental anguish as they relate to her ability (or inability) to go to college, explore certain career paths, and otherwise live <i normal life.

9. I am unable to observe Plaintiffs reactions to the tests administered by Dr. Flynn and this data t$ not available through less intrusive means than conducting (a) a clinical interview lasting no more than four hours where Plaintiffs history and personality disorders would be discussed/ and (b| a MMPI-2. This is because the raw data and examination record from Dr. Flynn were based on, at least in part, his subjective Interpretation of Plaintiffs responses to hfs questions. Hts data and records were also based» in part, on bis subjective or clinical Judgment, including which subject matters and events to cover or not cover. As a result, I do not have all the data and records regarding Plaintiff, For example^ reviewing Dr. Ptyon's raw data and Dr. Flynn's deposlfclon i.ranscrlpt only allows me to form opinions based upon the subjective and selective Information obtained by Dr. Flynn, The requested examination would enable me to explore the opinions of Dr. FIynn and potentially discover additional facts that may contradict or bear upon hi$ opinions."

10. Further/ affiant sayeth not.

Zis^i K. CJaytoft, M. 57

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the /f} day of y> i_ 2015, to

certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

Notaryfubtic in and fo the State of Texas

Doc No, d 5925 .^•^w^^.^^^^^., ^0^JPSeP^- Yoo ^NS^ CGiwnission Expires

04..23-20S6

Page 3 of 3

Exhibit 5

Cause Number: DC-13-04564

JANE DOE, § IN THE DISTMCT COURT

Plaintiff,

§

V. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT §

ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, § INC.; HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; § HYATT HOUSE FRANCHISING, L.L.C.; § GRAND PMX FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; § INK ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION m, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, L.P.; JEFFREY H. FISHER, Individually; POST PROPERTIES, INC.; POST ADDISION CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; AJI?DIN § "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN KREKA; and § DOES 1-25, § §

Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2fF» EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS

Pursuant to the 193 Judicial Distdct Court's Standing Scheduling Order and TEX. R.

Civ. P. 194.2(f), PlamtiffJane Doe ("Plaintiff") hereby makes and serves Plaintiff's TEX. R. Civ.

P. 194.2(f) Expert Witness Designations, Plaintiff reser/es the right to designate rebuttal expert

witnesses, designate expert witnesses identified by Defendants, and supplement and/or amend

these expert witness designations as discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have

been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CJV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 1 OF 20

Respectfully submitted,

ROYCE WEST G. MICHAEL GRUBER State Bar No. 21206800 State Bar No. 08555400 rQVce.w{%westllp_.oom mgruber(S),ghihlaw. corn VERETTA FRAZIER EMC POLICASTRO State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No. 24068809 veretta.f(%westllp.cQm epolicastro@ghihlaw. corn NIGEL REDMOND TREY CRA.WFORD State Bar No. 24058852 State Bar No. 24059623 nigel.r(%westllp .corn tcrawford(%ghihlaw. corn WEST & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP P.O. Box 3960 1445 Ross Aveme, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75208-1260 Dallas, Texas 75202 Ofc.; (214)941-1881 214.855.6800 (main) Fax: (214) 941-1399 214.855.6808 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy oi Plaintiff's TEX. R. Civ. P.

194.2 (f) Expert Witness Designations were served—in accordance with TEX. R. ClV. P. 21,

2 la—on April 30,2014 via certified mail, return receipt requested to all counsel of record.

Erie Policastro

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 2 OF 20

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(T) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS

(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 opinions and a

brief summary of the basis for them, or tf 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;

RESPONSE:

The following individuals have been retained by Plaintiff in this case to help the jury and

Court better understand various medical, scientific, professional, technical, and/or scientific

aspects of the claims brought by Plaintiff due to the damages she incurred that were caused by

Defendants' tortious conduct:

I. RETAINED TESTIFYING EXPERTS

Dr. Claire E. Brenner, M.D.

Dr. Claire E. Brenner, M.D.—(972) 494-1155, 2241 Peggy Lane Suite E, Garland, Texas

75042—is a medical doctor who holds board certifications in infectious disease and internal

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 3 OF 20 medicine. Please see the attached Exhibit A for a copy of Dr. Brenner's resume and/or

bibliography. In this case. Dr. Brenner may testify concerning the clinical course of infectious

diseases, including the herpes virus, generally, as well as in Plaintiffs case. Dr. Brenner may

testify about the general nature, incubation, presentment, recurrence, and effects of the herpes

virus related to an individual who is infected with the disease, including Plaintiff. Dr. Brenner

may testify concerning the clinical course, progression, treatment, effects (physical, emotional,

fmancial, etc.), and prognosis of an individual diagnosed with the herpes virus, and the fact that

there is no cure for the herpes virus, generally, as well as the same categories of testimony

regarding Plaintiff. Additionally, Dr. Brenner may testify generally as to the human anatomy, the

effect of the herpes virus on an infected individual's body, mind, and quality of life, as well as

the irreversible effects of the herpes virus, complications caused by the herpes virus throughout

an individual's life including during pregnancy/labor and the effects it may have on a newborn

child. Dr. Brenner may testify about the effect the herpes vims has on an infected individual's

immune system throughout said individual's life. Dr. Brenner may testify about the progression

of the disease in Plaintiff, and the mental, physical, psychological, fmancial, and physiological

obstacles Plaintiff will encounter throughout her life as a result of the rape and the disease. She

may also testify concerning the scientific literature on the biological, physical, physiological,

social, and mental effects of infectious diseases—including the herpes virus—authored by Dr.

Brenner and others. Dr. Brenner may testify as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Dear!'s medical

history, respectively. She may testify concerning the transmission of the herpes virus from one

individual to another, including the same for Plaintiff. Dr. Brenner may testify as to the

procedures, protocols, tests, and science behind the same that a medical staff could and would

observe and/or perform for an individual who is suspected to have been the victim of a sexual

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 4 OF 20 assault, including what was done for Plaintiff on April 26, 2011. Dr. Brenner may testify as to

the results of the rape kit performed on Plaintiff on April 26, 2011, as well as the results of the

State of Texas's sexually transmitted disease test of Defendant Deari. Dr. Brenner may testify

that the herpes virus that Plaintiff presented to Parkland hospital in May .2011 was consistent

with an initial outbreak of herpes that took place during and/or immediately after the generally

accepted incubation time for the disease after an individual's first exposure. Dr. Brermer may

testify that Plaintiff may require medical monitoring, treatment, aad/or hospitalization as a result

of the disease. Dr. Brenner may also testify that Plamtiffhas incurred in the past, and will incur

in the future, medical expenses as a result of the herpes virus she contracted from the sexual

assault that took place at the Hyatt House hotel. Dr. Brenner may also testify that said past and

future medical expenses are reasonable and necessary, especially in light of the incurable nature

of the disease for which Plaintiff has been diagnosed. Dr. Brenner may further testify as to facts

and circumstances regarding the nature of the injuries and damages that are the subject of this

action. Dr. Brenner's testimony will be based upon her skill, knowledge, education, experience,

and training, as well as her review of Plaintiffs medical records and diagnoses, scientific

literature and studies, and the evidence, pleadings, and discovery served, produced, and/or

elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability

and/or certamty, Plamtiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this expert witness

designation as discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have been learned and

produced.

Mr. John A. Harris. CPA, CPP, PSP

Mr. John A. Harris, CPP, PSP, CPA—(404) 888-0060, 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200,

Atlanta, Georgia 30309—is a premises liability and forensic security expert. Please see the

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 5 OF 20 attached Exhibit B for a copy of Mr. Harris's resume and/or bibliography. Mr. Harris is board

certified in security management (CPP) and Physical Security (PSP) by the professional

certification board of ASIS International, an ANSI accredited standards development

organization with worldwide membersMp of over 37,000 security professionals. Mr. Harris's

CPP certification, is the preeminent designation awarded to individuals whose primary

responsibilities are m security management and who have demonstrated advanced knowledge in

security solutions and best business practices. Mr. Harris's experience in physical security began /

over 40 years ago when he was undergoing training to become a commissioned officer in the

United States Marine Corps, and he has conducted over 1,200 security risk assessments of

various types of commercial properties including apartments, hotels, office buildings, parking

lots, and mails located m 43 states as well as in Puerto Rico, the Virgm Islands, and Colombia,

South America. In this case, Mr, Harris may testify that the sexual assault of Plaintiff on April

26, 2011, while the guest of an invitee and/or invitee at the Hyatt House located at 4900 Edwin

Lewis Drive m Addison, Texas, was reasonably foreseeable and should have been anticipated by

the "Hotel Defendants' based on the crimes committed on the premises and the surrounding

area m the five years preceding April 26, 2011. Mr. Harris may testify that, prior to April 26,

2011, there had been sufficient crime committed at the Hyatt Hotel—including an armed robbery

of an employee of the Hotel Defendants' just months before Plaintiff was raped on the same

premises—and in the immediate vicinity to put the Hotel Defendants on notice that reasonable

security measures were needed for the security, safety and well-being of their guests, invitees,

and other people legally on their property. Mr. Harris may testify that in the five years preceding

1 As used herein, "Hotel Defendants" refers to Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Grand Prix Floating Lessee, LLC, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Hyatt House Franchising, LLC, Jeffrey H. Fisher, Chatham Lodging, L.P., Chatham TRS Holding, LLC, Ink Acquisition, LLC, Ink Acquisition II, LLC, Ink Acquisition III, LLC, Ink Lessee Holding, LLC, and Ink Lessee LLC.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 6 OF 20 the attack on Plaintiff at the hotel, that there had been a significant number of criminal incidents

reported to the Addison Police Department (including multiple crimes at the Hyatt House hotel

and other hotels immediately in the vicinity of the Hyatt House hotel) such that the real potential

of a violent crime taking place at the hotel was reasonably foreseeable. Mr. Harris may testify

that these reported offenses included violent crime that the Hotel Defendants either knew or

reasonably should have known about and should have taken proactive steps to ensure the security

of its premises but did not. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants negligently failed to

analyze the level of crime at or near the Hyatt House hotel provided by the Addison Police

Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety and to utilize those analyses in

determining the security needs of the property, and fhat the Hotel Defendants negligently failed

to request any mformation from the Addison Police Department regarding past or current

criminal incidents on the premises and in the immediate vicinity as a reasonably prudent hotel

operator would and should have done. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants failed to

conduct either component of a. security risk assessment, including the failure to conduct a threat

assessment (based upon historical information of past criminal events, actual threats, inherent

threats, and potential threats by virtue of the vulnerabilities around the hotel or weaknesses in the

security program which produce opportunities for crime to occur) and the negligent failure to

conduct a vulnerability assessment to analyze the weaknesses of the Hotel Defendants' security

program or, alternatively, that the Hotel Defendants negligently failed to engage a professional

security consultant to conduct the analysis. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants'

negligent failure to conduct a security risk assessment made it impossible for the Hotel

Defendants to assess the likelihood that criminals could and would exploit vulnerabilities or

compromise security countermeasures at the hotel. Mr. Harris may testify that, based upon the

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 7 OF 20

Hotel Defendants' experience in the lodging industry, the Hotel Defendants knew or should have

known that their guests, mvitees, and other people legally on their property were at risk to

criminal activities if reasonable security measures were not undertaken, and that the Hotel

Defendants knew or should have known that m the absence of reasonable security measures, the

multiple property crimes (e.g., theft, vehicle break-ins, etc.) that were reported at the Hyatt

House hotel can lead to violent crimes against persons. Mr. Harris may testify that it is generally

accepted that most crimes are not random events, but planned events in environments -which

provide the opportunity to commit a crime with the least likelihood of detection, intervention and

apprehension and, further, that these conditions existed at the Hyatt House hotel on, and prior to,

the April 26, 2011 attack on Plaintiff yet the Hotel Defendants did nothing. Mr. Harris may

testify that the Hotel Defendants negligently failed to have security and/or adequate security at

the Hyatt House hotel and that the Hotel Defendants knew or should have known that they did

not have security and/or adequate security and that the inadequate security was unreasonably

safe. Mr. Harris may testify that, at all pertinent times, the Hotel Defendants owned, operated,

and/or controlled the Hyatt House hotel, and that the Hotel Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff

to exercise reasonable care (at a minimum) to protect Plaintiff from criminal attacks and other

reasonably foreseeable injuries. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants breached its

duties by committing the following non-exhaustive list of acts or omissions: (1) the Hotel

Defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care in providing security guard services

(the same services that were once provided but eliminated due to an attempted cost savings

measure by the Hotel Defendants); (2) the Hotel Defendants' failure to implement sufficient

security measures and conduct any type oftb-eat assessment or security assessment for the Hyatt

House hotel at any point in time (including to this day); (3) the Hotel Defendants' negligent

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 8 OF 20 /•-'

\,;_, - -

failure to properly train any of its employees on adequate security measures for the safe

operation of a hotel; (4) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to have more than one employee

working during the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. when Plaintiff was being sexually

assaulted at the hotel; (5) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to implement security policies

and procedures that adhere to industry best practices of identifying, addressing, and mitigating

security vulnerabilities at the hotel; (6) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to adhere to its

own security policies and procedures (despite the fact that said policies and procedures fall far

below the industry standard of care); (7) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to provide any

security personnel at the hotel (which, naturally, caused the Hotel Defendants to fail to train said

personnel properly); (8) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to properly or adequately train

management personnel for oversight of security and safety issues; (9) the Hotel Defendants'

negligent failure to provide appropriate and adequate physical security measures commensurate

with the risk that existed on the premises—including, but not limited to, the lack of any patrols

(i.e., off-duty police officers, private security guards, etc.); (10) the Hotel Defendants' negligent

failure to have any system, procedure, or policy in place to detect, monitor, and control access to

the hotel; (11) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to enforce procedures regarding suspicious

guests and suspicious prospective guests during the check-in process; (12) the Hotel Defendants'

negligent failure to have operable closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras installed in any area

of the hotel that would be conducive to guest safety and security and, further, conducive to

deterring, detecting, monitoring, or preventing crune; (13) the Hotel Defendants' negligent

failure to even know about—let alone implement—the generally accepted industry standards for

premises security and premises security at a lodging facility found in NFPA 370 and 371; (14)

the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to adhere to industry best practices by failing to identify

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2CF) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 9 OF 20

^;-

and address measures to mitigate security vuhierabilities at the hotel; (15) the Hotel Defendants'

negligent failure to exercise reasonable care in providing adequate security and failing to

implement sufficient security measures; (16) the Hotel Defendants' negligent failure to conduct

periodic reviews and recapitulations of security incident reports at the Hyatt House hotel and

remedy the security deficiencies that it knew or should have known about; and (17) the Hotel

Defendants' negligent failure to remedy the glaring security concerns noted on its own internal

audits for years prior to the attack on Plaintiff. Mr. Harris may testify that the negligent acts and

omissions by the Hotel Defendants to discharge the duties of a reasonably pradent property

owner/manager/operator to provide reasonable security and property management measures at

the Hyatt Hotel was a substantial factor and/or proximate cause of the attack on Plaintiff and

damages she incurred. Mr. Harris may testify that had the Hotel Defendants acted as a

reasonably prudent property owner/manager/operator would have acted in the same or similar

circumstances (given the amount, similarity, proximity, frequency, and publicity of crime at or m

the immediate vicinity of the Hyatt House Hotel) to provide reasonable security and property

management measures at the Hyatt House hotel, it is more probable than not that the sexual

assault of Plaintiff would not have occurred. Mr. Harris may testify that due to the violent

criminal atmosphere that existed at the Hyatt House hotel and in its immediate vicinity, that the

Hotel Defendants' failure to provide security guards, operable closed-circuit televisions, and

other reasonable security measures was in gross breach of minunum standards of care for an.

mnkeeper. Mr. Harris may testify that the Hotel Defendants' acts or omissions, when viewed

objectively from the standpoint of the Hotel Defendants at the time of its occurrence involved an

extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others,

and that the Hotel Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CW. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 10 OF 20 nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others,

including Plaintiff. With respect to Pastazios Pizza, Inc., Post Addison Circle Limited

Partnership, and Post Properties, Inc., Plamtiff expects that Mr. Harris may testify in a similar

fashion as he may testify as to the Hotel Defendants (but, naturally, with respect to a

restaurant/restaurant common area that is open to the public such that the owners of said

premises know that alcohol is consumed on said premises by the public on a daily basis). Mr.

Harris may testify that the Post entities were negligent and grossly negligent for failing to

terminate its lease with Pastazios Pizza, Inc. after Pastazios violated the Texas Alcohol and

Beverage Code on multiple occasions, including a publicly known sale of alcohol to an 18 year

old female in. 2002 during a law enforcement sting operation. Mr. Harris may further testify as to

facts and circumstances regarding the nature of the injuries and damages that are the subject of

this action. Mr. Harris's testimony will be based upon his skill, knowledge, education,

experience, and training, as well as his review of the pertinent authoritative publications written

by him and others, and the evidence, pleadings, and discovery served, produced, and/or elicited

in this case and based upon a reasonable degree of professional probability and/or certainty.

PlamtifF reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as

discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr. William E. Flvnn, Ph.D.

Dr. William E. Flynn, Ph.D.—(214) 202-7344, 100 Highland Park Village, Suite 200,

Dallas, Texas 75205—is a forensic and clinical psychologist. Please see the attached Exhibit C

for a copy of Dr. Flynn's resume and/or bibliography. In this case, Dr. Flynn. may testify,

generally, about the psychological, medical, behavioral, educational, physiological, vocational,

and social trauma that a victim of a sexual assault—including a sexual assault that ultimately

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CW. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 11 OF 20 ^ - • -

causes the transmission of an incurable disease—can experience, including Plaintiff. Dr. Flyim

may testify about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") m general and as applied to victims

of rape, including Plaintiff. Dr. Flymi may testify about other medical and psychological

conditions—including, but not limited to, depression, PTSD, sleep disorders, eating disorders,

substance abuse, self-harm/self-injury, flashbacks, personality disorders, suicide, etc,—that are

reasonably likely to arise in victims of rape, including Plaintiff. Dr. Flynn may testify regarding

the need for medical and/or psychological treatment throughout the course of a rape victim's

life—generally, as well as with respect to Plaintiff—and he may also testify as to the reasonable

and necessary future psychiatric expenses that Plaintiff is, in all reasonable probability, likely to

1

incur in the future as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct and the permanent and mcurable

nature of the herpes virus. Dr. Flynn may testify as to the permanent and incurable nature of

Plaintiffs injuries and disease—as well as the impact of said injuries and disease on Plaintiffs

life, education, future earning capacity, mental state, etc.—from a forensic and clinical

psychology perspective. Dr. Flynn may further testify as to facts and circumstances regarding the

nature of the injuries and damages that are the subject of this action. Dr. Flynn's testimony will

be based upon his skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training, as well as his review of

the pertinent authoritative publications written by him and others, and the evidence, pleadings,

and discovery served, produced, and/or elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree

of professional, medical, and scientific probability and/or certainty. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr. Joe G. Gonzales. M.D., FAAPMR, CLCP

Dr. Joe G. Gonzales—(210) 501-0995, 11550 IH 10 West, Suite 375, San Antonio, Texas

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2CF) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 12 OF 20

78230—is a Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation specialist (board certified). Pain Management

specialist (board certified), Occupational & Environmental Medicine specialist (board certified),

and certified life care planner who has practiced Medicine m Texas since 1985 and is certified by

the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, the American Board of Pain

Medicine, and the American College of Occupational & Enviromaental Medicine. Dr. Gonzales

is a Diplomat of the American Academy of Pain Management, a Designated Physician of the

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, and a Certified Life Care Planner as designated by

the Commission on Health Care Certification. Dr. Gonzales is the President of the Texas

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Institute, and the Founder and Medical Director of Physician

Life Care Planning, LLC. Dr. Gonzales is a licensed physician in the State of Texas. Please see

the attached Exhibit D for a copy of Dr. Gonzales's resume and/or bibliography. Dr. Gonzales

may testify about vocational feasibility or disabled related needs of injured people and/or

individuals with disabilities or life-altering and permanent diseases (such as Plaintiff), determme

the need for medical, psychological and vocational services, identify functional linutations and

need for assistive devices for Plaintiff, conduct job and task analyses as well as labor market

surveys. Dr. Gonzales may be called to testify with regard to life care planning for Plaintiff, and

the value of such assistance and/or care, for those—such as Plaintiff—who are injured or those

with disabilities. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to the permanent and incurable nature of Plaintiffs

injuries and disease—as well as the impact of said mjuries and disease on Plaintiff's life,

education, future earning capacity, mental state, etc.—from a physical, psychological, and/or

social perspective, and he may testify as to what Plaintiff would have been capable of earning—

as well as Plaintiffs other economic losses—had she never been subject to the injuries caused by

Defendants' tortious conduct. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to the reasonable and necessary future

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 13 OF 20 medical expenses that Plaintiff is, in all reasonable probability, likely to incur in the future as a

result of Defendants' tortious conduct and the permanent and incurable nature of the herpes

virus. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to the economic loss incurred by Plaintiff m the past to treat

the injuries she sustained that were caused by Defendants, as well as Plaintiffs future loss of

earning capacity based upon Plaintiffs earnings, medical condition, stamina, efficiency, ability

to work in light of the injuries sustained, the weaknesses and changes that will naturally result

from Plaintiffs injuries, and Plaintiffs work-life expectancy. Dr. Gonzales may testify as to a life

care plan for Plaintiffs lifetime that determines her lifetime needs and costs of care (e.g,,

Plaintiffs medical, psychiatric, psychological, behavioral, educational, vocational and social

needs, etc.) for her chronic disease and psychological trauma caused by Defendants' tortious

conduct. Dr. Gonzales may further testify as to facts and circumstances regarding the nature of

the injuries and damages that are the subject of this action. Dr. Gonzales's testimony will be

based upon his skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training, as well as his review of the

pertinent authoritative publications written by him and others, and the evidence, pleadings, and

discovery served, produced, and/or elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree of

professional, medical, and scientific probability and/or certainty. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery contmues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr. John A. Swieer, Ph.D.

Dr. John A. Swiger, Ph.D.—(210) 434-6711, 411 S.W. 24th Street, San Antonio, Texas

78207—is a Doctor of Finance and is an economist. Please see the attached Exhibit E for a copy

of Dr. Swiger's resume and/or bibliography. As an expert economist. Dr. Swiger may testify as

to the economic loss, discounted to present value, which Plaintiff has incurred due to the tortious

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 14 OF 20 conduct of Defendants. Dr. Swiger may also testify generally regarding the concept of present

value and its application to economic losses, particularly loss of earning capacity, past and future

medical expenses, lost wages, loss and future medical costs. Dr. Swiger may testify as to the

reasonable and necessary future medical expenses that Plaintiff is, in all reasonable probability,

likely to incur in the future as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct and the permanent and

incurable nature of the herpes virus. Dr. Swiger may testify as to the economic loss mcurred by

Plaintiff in the past to treat the injuries she sustained that were caused by Defendants, as well as

Plaintiffs future loss of earning capacity based upon Plamtiffs earnings, medical condition,

stamina, efficiency, ability to work in light of the injuries sustained, the weaknesses and changes

that will naturally result from Plaintiffs injuries, and Plaintiff's work-life expectancy. Dr. Swiger

may testify as to Plaintiffs past lost wages, the economic value of the loss of enjoyment of life,

and other economic losses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct. Dr.

Swiger may also testify about Defendants' financial conditions, the net worth and profits of

Defendants, and/or Defendants' current fiscal policies and/or practices for purposes of

establishing Defendants' wealth during the punitive damages phase of trial. Dr. Swiger may

further testify as to facts and circumstances regarding the nature of the injuries and damages that

are the subject of this action. Dr. Swiger's testimony will be based upon his skill, knowledge,

education, experience, and training, as well as his review of the pertinent authoritative

publications written by him and others in the field of economics, and the evidence, pleadings,

and discovery served, produced, aad/or elicited in this case and based upon a reasonable degree

of professional and scientific probability and/or certainty. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 15 OF 20

II. UNRETAINED TESTIFYING EXPERTS

Plaintiff hereby designates the followmg individuals as "umetained testifying experts" as

these individuals are not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of

Plaintiff. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 194.2(f)(3).

Detective Katie Spencer

Detective Katie Spencer—(972) 450-7100, c/o Addison Police Department, 4799 Airport

Parkway, Addison, Texas 75001—is a detective with the Addison Police Department. Detective

Spencer investigated the rape of Plaintiff such that, in addition to testifying with respect to her

expertise in criminal investigations and criminal conduct in Addison, Texas (of this case and

other criminal cases in Addison, Texas from 2005 to the present)—Detective Spencer is also a

percipient witness of the circumstances surrounding the sexual assault on Plaintiff and the lack of

security and safety measures m place at the Hyatt House hotel oa April 26, 2011. Documents

reflecting Detective Spencer's investigation of the sexual assault of Plaintiff have previously

been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this expert

witness designation as discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have been learned

and produced.

Officer Isaac Closer

Officer Isaac Gloger—(972) 450-7100, c/o Addison Police Department, 4799 Airport

Parkway, Addison, Texas 75001—is a police officer with the Addison Police Department.

Officer Gloger was the arresting officer of Defendant Dear! on April 26, 2011 and interviewed

Defendant Dear! at the crime scene where Plaintiff was raped such that, in addition to testifying

with respect to his expertise in criminal iuvestigations and criminal conduct in Addison, Texas

(of this case and other criminal cases in Addison, Texas from 2005 to the present)— Officer

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 16 OF 20 ^ Gloger is also a percipient witness of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the sexual

assault on Plaintiff and the lack of security and safety measures in. place at the Hyatt House hotel

on April 26, 2011. Documents reflecting Officer Gloger's investigation of the sexual assault of

Plaintiff have previously been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement

and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional facts and

evidence have been learned and produced.

Mr.JKenneth Sherman

Mr. Kenneth Sherman—(817) 652-5912, c/o Arlington Regional Office of Texas

Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 2225 East Randol Mill Road, Suite 200, Arlington, Texas

76011—is a licensed peace officer m the State of Texas and is employed by the Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission as an Enforcement Agent. Mr. Sherman investigated the violations of the

/ Texas Alcoholic and Beverage Code committed by Pastazios Pizza, Inc., as well as photographed

the "common area" shared between Post and Pastazios Pizza on which Plaintiff became

obviously intoxicated, as well as interviewed Plaintiff, Defendant Deari, and Defendant Kreka.

Mr. Sherman may testify as to his personal knowledge of the facts of this case (including his

investigation), as well as based upon his skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training as

to criminal and administrative investigations and violations of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage

Code (in this case and other cases in Addison, Texas from 2005 to the present), the standard of

care required of a business that knowingly and intentionally leaves its property open for the

public to consume alcoholic beverages on, fhe Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (in general and

as applied to this case), and the incidence of intoxicated minors in general, and those subject to a

cruninal attack, in the Addison, Texas area from 2005 to the present (includmg the resulting

damages that arise therefrom). Documents reflecting Mr. Sherman's investigation related to this

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 17 OF 20

case have previously been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement

and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional facts and

evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr. Allison Jeanne Brooks-Heinzman, M.D.

Dr. Allison Jeamie Brooks-Heinzman, M.D.—(512) 324-9650, 313 E. 12th Street #101,

Austin, Texas 78701—is a medical doctor who is board certified in obstetrics and gyaecology.

Dr. Brooks-Heinzman was Plaintiffs treating physician on the night of April 26, 2011 after

Plaintiff was sexually assaulted at the Hyatt House hotel and subsequently transferred to

Parkland Hospital for testing, treatment, and evaluation. Dr. Brooks-Heinzman may testify-

based upon her perceptions and skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training—about her

treatment of Plaintiff (including the results of any tests conducted during, or as a result of, said

treatment). Plaintiffs physical, mental, physiological, and psychological condition of the night

of April 26, 2011, obstetrics and gynecology in general, and the physical, emotional, mental,

social, and biological effects and trauma associated with rape victims and rape victims who are

infected with an incurable sexually transmitted disease during the course of the rape. Documents

(as well as an executed HIPAA authorization) reflecting Dr. Brooks-Heinzman's treatment of

Plaintiff in tMs case have previously been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

Dr^Dustjn B. Manders, M.D.

Dr. Dustin B. Manders, M.D.—(214) 648-3639, c/o University of Texas Southwestern,

5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390—is a medical doctor who is board certified in

obstetrics and gynecology. Dr. Manders was Plaintiffs treating physician on May 6, 2011 when

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 18 OF 20

Plaintiff returned to Parkland Hospital with a "chief complamt" that "it feels like someone hit me

in the crotch with a hammer covered in razors." Dr. Manders diagnosed subsequently diagnosed

Plaintiff with a "primary outbreak" of herpes. Dr. Manders may testify—based upon his

perceptions and skill, knowledge, education, experience, and training—about his treatment of

Plaintiff (including the results of any tests conducted during, or as a result of, said treatment),

Plaintiffs physical, mental, physiological, and psychological condition on May 6, 2011,

obstetrics and gynecology in general, the generally accepted incubation period &om exposure to

outbreak of the herpes virus, and the physical, emotional, mental, social, and biological effects

and trauma associated with rape victims and rape victims who are infected -with an incurable

sexually transmitted disease during the course of the rape. Documents (as well as an executed

HIPAA authorization) reflecting Dr. Manders's treatment of Plaintiff in this case have previously

been produced to Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this expert

witness designation as discovery continues and additional facts and evidence have been learned

and produced.

m. ATTORNEYS' FEES EXPERTS

Eric Policastro and Tom H. Crawford HI—(214) 855-6800, c/o Gruber Hurst Johansen

Hail Shank LLP, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas, Texas 75202—are the attorneys for

Plaintiff and expect to testify to the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees for the prosecution

of Plaintiff s claims against Defendants. Plaintiffs attorneys expect to testify that the attorneys'

fees incurred by Plaintiff in fhis litigation were reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of

her claims against Defendants. They will testify that the total fees as well as the hourly rates

charged by Plaintiff's counsel were reasonable in the State of Texas as well as in Dallas County,

specifically. They will testify based on their education, skill, knowledge, training, and experience

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 19 OF 20 in the practice of law as licensed attorneys in the State of Texas, their knowledge about this case,

and upon a review of the fee statements reflecting the fees incurred by Plamtiff. Plaintiffs

attorneys will farther testify as to the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees likely to be

incurred by Plaintiff in the event that a jury verdict is appealed to the Court of Appeals and/or the

Texas Supreme Court, as well as the total number of hours worked in this matter and wiU offer

an opinion as to the total reasonable fee for said necessary -work. Plaintiffs attorneys are familiar

with all of the pleadings and discovery transmitted by the parties in this case Plaintiff's

attorneys' resumes can be found at http://www.ghjhlaw.com/. Plaintiff reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend this expert witness designation as discovery continues and additional

facts and evidence have been learned and produced.

PLAINTIFF'S TEX. R. CTV. P. 194.2(F) EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATIONS PAGE 20 OF 20

EXHIBIT A

CLAIRE E. BRENNER, M.D.

\ -

2241 Peggy Lane, Suite E.

Garland, Texas 75042

972-494-1155 (W) 972-494-6572 (F) 214-507-8339 (M)

PRESENT POSITION INFECTIOUS DISEASE PHYSICIAN FOUNDING PHYSICIAN OF CLAIRE BRENNER, M.D., P.A. - 2004 MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF INFECTION CONTROL - BAYLOR GARLAND HOSPITAL- 2003 BAYLOR GARLAND WOUND CARE CLINIC - 2006

PREVIOUS POSITION NORTH TEXAS INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTANTS - 8/1/2001 -1/20/2004

HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES Baylor of Garland Medical Center, Garland, TX 2001-present Lake Pointe Medical Center, Rowlett, TX 2008-present Presbyterian Hospital of Rockwall, Rockwall, TX 2008-present Forest Park Medical Center, Dallas, TX 2010-present Kindred Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, TX 2013-present Methodist Hospital for Surgery, Addison, TX 2012-present Methodist Richardson Medical Center, Richardson, TX 2013-present

EDUCATION 1996 M.D, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School - Dallas, Texas 1991 B.S. University of Texas at San Antonio, Major: Biology

POSTGRADUATE TRAINING 1999-2001 Infectious Diseases Fellowship, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 1997-1999 Residency, Depart, of Internal Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 1996-1997 Internship, Depart, of Internal Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

MEDICAL LICENSURE AND BOARD CERTIFICATION Board Certified, Infectious Disease - October 2001; Recertification, Infectious Disease - 2012 Board Certified, Internal Medicine - August 1999 - Certificate # 1945635; Recertification, Internal Medicine - 1999 Certification of Attendance Principles of Wound Healing and Hyperbaric Medicine -2006 Texas Medical License - #1-1533 United States Medical Licensing Exam -July 1998

HONORS AND AWARDS Medical School Class Rank: Top 20% Southwestern Medical Foundation Scholarship, 1992

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Infectious Diseases Society of America -2000 Society of Hospital Epidemiology- 2003

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Histology Course Teaching Assistant, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School -1995 Baylor Garland Family Practice Residence/lnfectious Disease Rotation - 2004-present Podiatric Residency Program/lnfectious Disease Rotation - 2007-present

ABSTRACTS 1) Warren RQ, Brenner CE, Holf H., Kanda P., Boswell RN, Kennedy RC. Characterization of longitudinal sera samples from HIV-1 infected individuals for antibodies reactive to gpl60 synthetic peptides International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Third Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS, CIearwater, Florida. 1990.

2) Warren RQ, Half H., Nkya WM, Brenner CE, Anderson SA, Boswell RN, Kanda P., Kennedy RC. Comparison of antibody specificities to HIV-1 gpl60 epitopes defined by synthetic peptides in sera from infected individuals from Tanzania and the United States. International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Third Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS. Clearwater, Florida. 1990.

3) Shao JF, Half H., Warren RQ, Brenner CE, Kennedy RC. Reactivity of HIV-1 Infected Individuals from Tanzania with an Immunodominant B-Cell Epitope on gp41. International Conference on Advances in AIDS Vaccine Development: Thirds Annual Meeting of the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Groups for AIDS. Clearwater, Florida. 1990.

4) Nkya WM, Warren RQ, Half H., Brenner CE, Tesha J., Kanda P., Kennedy RC. Fine Specificity of the Humeral Immune Response to HIV-1 gpl60 in HIV-1 infected individuals from Tanzania. Fifth International Conference on AIDS in Africa. Kinshasha, Zaire. 1990.

5) Warren RQ, Half H., Brenner CE, Kanda P., Boswell RN, Kennedy RC. Decline in Antibody Reactivity to specific HIV-1 gpl60 epitopes in associated with CD4+ cell levels below 200/mm in infected individuals. Conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 1991.

6) HollingsworthRE,BrennerCE,ZhuX-L, Lee WH. Regulation of the RB Protein by the CDC2 cell cycle kinase.

The Symposium on Cancer Research, San Antonio, Texas. 1992.

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 1) Mapping the Antibody Reactivity to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Envelope Antigens in Infected Individuals, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1990 2) Preparation of Boc-threonine-4-oxymethyD-phenyiacetic acid for use as a linker in solid phase peptide synthesis, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1991 3) Institute of Biotechnology, worked on DNA sequencing of tumor suppressor genes as a full-time research assistant with Dr. Wen-Hwa Lee, San Antonio, Texas 1989-1991 4) Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, studied the Humeral Immune Response to H1V with Dr.

Ronald Kennedy, San Antonio, Texas 1991 5) BMS Protocol A1455-135 ZEST QDAY-Phase IIIB, Open Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study Switching HIV-1 Infected Subjects with a Viral Load of<50 copies/ml on a BID Regimen or More Frequent Initial HAART Regimen to a Once Daily Regimen Including Stavudine XR, Lamivudine and Efavirenz, 2002

EXHIBIT B

(^URRimJLUM V^TA

JOHN A KlARRIS, ®FF*,: PBP Tti^ ^SENiW L^iu-ltY ^JM^.I-T^^TS. 'LL|C$:

'M'7?EARhreEg siiREErNE

8y?^Q0;

ATLANtia;, ©j^:3G3:0:9

4Q:4.€8Q^@©

. www.thacQ.n'sult.:c:om

Johft Harris' mulli-diSOiplined B&ckgrouh^ Is'tKe tiasis. oT hisi conTpFe'liferisree ajapi'babN t:o. pt^mfs^s ii^bHity^oHSUftifti'.. ?. !-larri§ is 'b.oaf<S Ggrtiffeet iti s^urity wartia^fi'm^rtt ^P^; and physical gepLU-iiy (PBPi and; is silso 9 r@tired.,©^rtifteid BuNi^Acjspyntant. (^F'fi^. ^ Note an ^l-^. '(fegFe^in r^gj estat^^n.d: a BX 'desgree in ^ceou'rtting.

Mr. HatTiSireG^^d hlfe fifsl;/eX;pSnSn!(X6 •in^pftyslefal.'&6ouri1^ when h6 wa^trafinlnQ fti bfi^eiyiea c?cnTimtesiGin^<3fri<:^r^n'thi6 United States &larinrg Gorps.

i-ij&alTas (?o,nc3ycte.d:o.y;.er 1,'y2QO' ;g@%urj|y; r.isk-.asse.ss.menf? of. |3remjs@^: in(5.ludi:i':ig ...rpultj- ^'Friiiy^jOdglpg,. t^sqrte'^ caiih(^f:r|^il^Q'l:fiee, niNi©^j :^,FlCiO'ajCistt-rail pi'ep^rdeg looa):6d in ;43 sM^s and Jh Puetto NaO, ite ¥itfi? IgiahdSyia'Nid aalofflbb, Satith An-feriGa.

Mr.. Harr.i.$,js;:'e!Xp.er)'^ne:.eri .in:'d:eyNQpin^ jmp)e.me.nfihg, manggmg and. ma;infaih;ih^ j^y^i©al &^u.Qty-pi^gr9jT^-with' pei'^n^ prQpertios.as: yvell as ftducj^ry f6S|30fteit3llitx'as:a^ffi-ieral p.artnbrirt real Sstate^in'^stments. aria srs^onsultanfelio. d^eiopets.j oWe'rg, marfag'e'rs, Sh'd insurers 'of p.rQ'pesFti'es'.,

IVlr. Harris1 .bpdyiof knfo%(ledg^ drtij expierien^ in premis.es s^oyrity., rga[ e^sA^ -Qn^. aopei.V.n.ti'ng pam.feineci .^jfh his.fQrerisio WQ,rk:jn::rr)u1ti-$tate jurjsGli^tio.ps. inyid.Iyj.ngi varie.ci; typfi^ of pi-iei-his^ ^aeh with :it§ bwiT.s'gticff fabts:ari1d (sireutTisfa'nise^ i^-tll^ ba^ of Mis spie.:cia:I.ized.!expertisei:: in premises s.'ecunty' risK: jdentjflcattori ;ariGi liability .mifig'affon.

^ ?(^rt^u®U!jj@(d forenste secy n'ty'.^p^rt, J:e>bn ^rds..©0r^yHs jwiihi d^ns^ and. Rlainfiff' QouOSiel .ihl^G^JI cijs^ifte<;ge§^|u1;i@.j^p]Roc^ss-'i-^ar^ing ppeCTJ9es Ija&jljfy releited'tc? ciegljQen^e and third p^rfcy isrihiiirial-aists suiSh as' asisSult, ho:mi©ide, R[dttapping,. ra||3e ^nd robbery.

f^EKS ^F;EXPERT1^E Aetequ'sioy oFseourit^ .Ne^ljg&pt hiring, .relentiein ^ffd supervi?ion VVQrl<p!sic^ vioJ.enoe;

lElHU&y 15, :2@t4 3^@:.<3y Iiage::1.9f7

EDUTOgXd M^R^arBsfeit^ Q:S., Ac6©Untitig

%^)I^ATlj%lS'

(Sgdifiexl Rr^etjon PrQfeissional pffl^), Bs:sir^ ©gtttfi^a in iS'eeurffiy Mana|^nT6Ht hy;;tM^ Pyeife^sieiyiai G&ffifioation Bo&rd ^©fi)^olP^^ (iiteKrti^ii&nSi, sn AN@1^ 'ac^fSd^ staniN'ci^ciwebSptn^rit ergiqnij^fiQn !^hw&rt(NNs m^nnibei^ftip "isf over s^Bfi^ ^eGLir'i^pK-QfegsiQnsla, Thiis. d^j|niatton5$>; gii:;l<:r(OTlN^e<fes fh^ ^%n-Jty^rj(^e^siQciiJ§ higfieifasei^^ftfoti.^ .tii^lTtjonel^ ^m h^e' (:iejric^taJE^:C!Cim^e|j^ in:;fhe-areas ^.^5tfrj^ solfjtii&tTs: ati'd b.esrt busi'ri'ess prSetIogs;. Rfqulr^mSn't^ for G:@FtifiGatj&ffi ^ass"ai§'6 Of;gt;Writt^n exiSrft,; bi8Sshe[QriSvd@Qfeijgi'ftorti SG •Sopt-gcllfeCI ,dm%ersiit:% anjd ^even 'yeeifs Gif®e£;Urity expgcibngg;. ©oriflnaing ^du.eeitlo.n. reqw^d for reCierl:ifiGLation:.,.<3;erfifted :thrc>ugh .20:14.

l?hy?tRal S^ui-jt^ Prtffes.sio^ (JPSP) ^Bo^1<l^rtifigyi'iii):3h^ie;ai S^curi(^by1;h^.I:}rofggstengl CeirfifIteajEiori Beard ;(.PC®JMyf ASI^ Internaftanal. Ttlis 'tSichtnsai.GfesigFiafi'on is iawarciled fe thoS® :ind'feiclualff Whose pnroary ^spQn^ifeiijitreaxTe tQ^pndupf physjDal.seisur'ify syrveii'&,:de!?)§[n integi'atsd .se!.py.pit^s:yste;m:s ,ap,G( yv!i.@; :hsiye de.mpnstr^tedl, in-d:epj;h pp.erat.iQns:: l<no.vvledge,:anci GO^Ref^poe. in this ar^six F^t-ilKsfn^feW.^W^^ passN^ <^ a ^Mtteri, sxai-n arrd i^s- ^ars' iex^rienc;^ te pftysibal :s;eQtirity. fcontinuJniF eciucatlon v^iqfuft-gd, for reioertifteatiRn. -Oeriifiec) 'through 120:1;5^

(SieiHftecl 13ublijR XicRauntainJi I^JRX) Rietirea- ©i3'ca|ua DP^OQBSM R'eqd^nTe^s %r <:^i¥i^iQ^fi"^s^unrf©ttm^PX.^^mihati^ Md teaLCOalaureate; ^Qnae Trom an.wcr^litei ]QoJNrsi:by wifh st GOr'iseFTtrafion it-i aGCountinQ'ofat' l^a^t: :3E>: gyartpr .R)T :2Q seme^^r IhiCiurs, and; a i^Q year'w4(IpR; hojpirs ^ cpntinu<3us je%perj@;nq®!;io pufeli!? cicGoyrrtjng. G^ntmujn^^dyoatip'n r^qujreel .for mai.n.tajning lieigff&e.

PUBLlt^nONIS & Pf^E^XWNJS "Fin.dih<g:a Rerfiteci^or R;eriteT&",; TRIAL rriagiazih'S pObliShe'd hy'th'S AssoeIStion Of Tfial LawxeFS bT-^mNri&a JSWl-A). The artiol^ addre^ed j^remisies liability issues in multi-family reSiija'ettiltiai properfiea. '^BQ^mb^^SQ^,

,Api|iear^d.Qnttl^ N.BO'p TOjsfay s^ow s.egm.^nt" .pn hot^l thefts,pOG7>

'PreigghfSiftem "Llsih^ JExp^i-ts'jtT S^Xual,Assau?:Oas6'g'>; f^nA artfiQai 'eo;Myeritioh .inad^quafe sscurfty' Liti^iOtri ©roup aH'd :i§<3teolis: '\/i6teniye,. Mis&onClu©f, wa :^gTet%;LitigiafiQn drpup, ^eajttf^, %A.(4y!y N3Qf01.

Jmmaiyt.S,;20l^ IAH.<3V Eag^pf?

Speaker 'C0rik;[u6; IsgLigs ih Apartrrienf Sseeucity Oase^'i The National @wri6; \»[iG^im Bar ^ssiQcjatidn .naifion^l. (SonfeisencefQn (iiwil Aotions ter ^riminar'Aets,. WWingNi, 13^ pay m6); Instfu^or on pre'ffitees liabiliSy^f iar\ .ASJS;®eGunty seminaF in L-os A:ng(eIe&,.GA

D.egianafeCinstriaofeir for tt)e |:iremtee& liateijlrty;seQti©?9fthe^ABI^ InfematiQpal ^?/§|tej?l iSeojurify G^ymsil RCQfesgiQp^J. d^eslRiis.tn.enti program.,, "IVIanaging yi9.y.r' Ph^sieal S^Fity'YTOi-cirtto^Gah&dcii ^2003)

i^ue^i: lediurer' Qn'ptetTnse^^iqhility srt'the Oei@rgia ''SA^ Uhjver^ify Depsirtrnient tif ©rimi^al ^usfiba, Atlanta, ©%i,{2^0^

6 eisurfty consult'atat fbr a 0a.fe.fee' AifB.G.^egi-nent d n. hotel seounty (2003)

.Ihteryfews:

iS;e©urity i^ues in :fad|ing faciil?ies f©r ;2fi/20,4^'©-^®02)T

F^rklrtg lot &nm^^ "^.-biQX refailet?^' fofABfS's'^iffQd MGrivffg^msrKS^ ari^Wff^^W^

S'eourjty at: totels./nTotel^.haw.^teeesn publishedl, in.seyeral issues pf'fhe: i-fOtel Security Report.

PROFEJSSIONIL B^TOiEiERSHlPS Xp!^rio9n 'Insfij;yt^p?titiffeci pulptic^cpunifente (^il(5P^

A€l8 Ihfe'rnalfiGitiai. (formQiKfythe^merican i@oeiety M l^yugNai .Seeufity N'ernatEQUal;)

PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL MEIVIBERSHIPS ©Qmrnercjsl R'eSil Estate-,(]?<Sun©ilia°(Slg Jriitern^ttohal

.RhysiG^l S.^.urjty B.o.unGi.l., .Ec(ysat{on ^orntnittee, ^§?1§ (nf@m§tj®nail

Bditorial Advisory; Bcsar-a oTWe' H:6t6l/©?a&iho/Res<:>r{ S^ounty R^pffrt andl the :Schoiol :Sesi3urit^ftj5iport, putalisted by, ^usdriQ P;ublicNions,,'Westbui'y, NV

ATTieriQgn H^tgil'and LQelgth.9 ^ssQKjgti.o.n

AfiStnM AFrartrHerttAigscNatfen-t

,N:afipn@l /s^c(rfm@[ntAssp;&)N:K3n

JaffluSsy-tS', ;2'01;4: ^^B^W'

Eag&$of:7

<;0}??r PfaSiTj^

TH© PREn/ltiSES UXi&il-iTY GOMsULTANTS, LLC <20aO-Presiertt)

i(LL©;for;rnato JaWar^ 201A. Pte^iiQUsly 310!^ tiroprtetor,; Thie 'HarFis; ©roujp^;

©i@n^teQH:pt^e]T):fej6s':l,iability issy@s' re(al§!dl :to.. ri^k'i.jdentifioafipn and (^ility .n-iifigatiop

Audits .ptremtees s@curitY:prc>ijr^n^^re&frip'liariee'w:i^h §e&utity inciusAy stat-fjEjat'd^,. giiTdeO.nfes: and best biisjrjggSi praofi&es.

^Q;ducsts sei^ril^^^eis^e^.sffi^nts

®jsternf1ines, ap'pf-o^prigjt^ eQunNrrnegsurieiS.j:^ ^ utilized' [n IrrtSigr^ted se'oUrit^

P-e^forms ;fiat^Dsj|s e^Iui^ti6ns4o Hi'aW QO(ic?)ySjoiT9 TegiaTding; ac|eq0aoy of premlsesflsjgeut'ity

©pines: o.n.fjnciings. of forensie'.e.yaluationscregardjng threat stnd yulnerab.illties^ .reaspnxbte ;oa.re, an,ci,:Qai)safion

Testi?e>s aS^a f6rens1& security'expert in 'ei'yiClitSigratten

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

LARRyT'XLLEV & A5Sy6lATES, Itie., i^giSOClATE 1^9^4-2000);

iSon^LlBtecl;prgr¥i:ises?sigpiir?s' risk as?feSStnents

Befer.n'i.ine^: appr.Qpri.ate .QQ,yot®riTi.eas;l-ir,es;>

Analyz@d;G:rarri:e to meidie ^tem'iinati&ns: reQarditig fiot-eseeability artd pro.idu'oe'd demonstralti^ ext'ubife ffeirtestjmony anc^ fcir exhibits :to 1:h&; reoQrd

^rCicU^eiJ ^tfo [Kjng ^Rlrs^for^tilripiTiy an4 for ^(Ki!?|ts to:th& record in suppQrt of G©ii?iclUsior>;§ r^rciltiig Standard bf^ear-e ^ncl catisafiiori

.R.eve.top.ed .crime, analysis roodel;

F^EITRi^, Fkg(1^l&](F^^D;DIj:|EN<^ OF^ALYTIGS; (•1|59M|-H^m)

1%§a1 ^ttiafeyisstoht tr?sf (R&IT); daia and' ^rraIyS^s:;fof':V\^iil istr^gf toesfmeini; .b.anking firms.

:F^rfc>rHi^('tS;g;j.ndi^ies"ctev^!cip^ fgr rs^J e^tfaf^lnye^ment'frys^ ^R?EtJS):in' .eo)T]i?Mi%'WKh ^ ^harto'i'r E^cir^rnefrlGi'p^r^G^titTg As^oeiat^^gR^:, jEifti%yli5,:2%4 3WCW Page ?W7

BQO ^IBiKISNrDlREeTQRiOF REAL ESTATE ©ONSULTING (l9Ssb-1S9l]| f^Qrtfotfes- Qf'real^estafe vafuFd^h e^eas iaJ6,$2@'biIliQTi

ffiKlMS; SECURITY, Oi?BR^iyN§;TROOBLESH&QTE^^1989-1:99^ :®eiSlirJtif6@r%fo&s: ineluait-iiii^sgiSUr'it^ Qutrd&

)3iyi^IO[N RplSKEBELl.ERiQRQfJP,, REAL ESTATE C<:!N5ULT^NTf!S836--1ff$J9I p^rtfeljc^. QftQffiG^byjlcijhg^ ;9par{n:ieptSi 'jndustrjaj^lifjes, mails, .shoprping ©e'ntefs, ^n'<d 16:dgin|; fadlitiesi fNrougheut the Unitet:! States

E<SWY OWNER or APARTMENTS iiM-iW^ FIRST RRC^PERpES, Sfll^tEHOJLRER f^S^Sf^^jn .j^al esfate'jn^^yirel-its ill ajsarttHents

UNtTEDS;I^ES;IVlARINECORPS^9S9-1l9S7'5)

XGfc idi^ty- — 1^B^,-1;S73 Attained the; rank- of'Ggptain jS^arded Cfe^iflGate 6f^;&mm^n.E(§ii(yn'

^l^TEE|TOlNlN<S U.SyArrrty'^hy^jcaj^ecurity Field Itoji.ials FJKI 1;&-3fll,;p^l3t|shedl F^(yuar^ I'QfjS,: United ^ii^ j^&ri^eC^^^^nra.^ing^ In-lplgfin^ntlQ,. ^ug|rvjaej: BfTslprtaiitl^dl aRd-mQr&ite-i J>hisieSl.sec^tJt^piaTiis fMm iti^ IfiNing,. Areas' instruetjyn and trairiiiig Irrcludgd ph^teat prot&otfon, perlmeterharriers;,. pr^^iy@:Jic[h18]%al^rrns^ (pcfcarnsl jte^y s^tgm^, guard 'foroe ^efepfiorj, and o^anjzadMn, trainitig S^. ^uperwi^i^Qy gygrdf!3t-R^-viVheiBt3Jj:ilty^^spij]ent, '|3li^icai -security sUiiesfSy; arid iriVeiStj^atioTi of &r^ch.e^ of physi:ic%>l seifeuTHi^THe prh-tdples ibf'{]nis:;™]ifary:tr^Nn^' fGt-rttlhe fGrunciNion'tbr ph$;sioa;i' ^eeuril^ in ti@: la.iKlic^^^ri'vat^ secfcoi-ss,

X?nrne .Preyenflon through Envn-onment.af Diesign ;(iCPTED^ qpurs^ ctt^e NatibrfStl Grime? Prewehtiwr Institute,. .Unive'r§ity':6fL6uisVill-&; Th®s6gurity?©Qh'oept feui^titUM^is eXpiKess©y:ag:;"TS'i?S!:'prc)p!&r aeslgEi:and effedtiwe us6 of.th^.huill fenwtxinmWTt&ao lei9;d ta ia reducition' in fhie fear ancilnoncience ^f predgliory $trsngertp.;sf;ranger orirrie, as %(e|l .as; gin'irnpr^emepf ©f'Jffie.qjLiaility oflifis'1. ^aw :enTorc^n^]nt: offiiG^rs ^eirl^ii^ an ?'eSt :to'1tHis/pr0gr£ttn for se©ut-ity;taiil-itng.

Gtime Fr^.6 I^U'It'i-l-ijfiUSin.Q pipbgram atthe.-Al.buq.i-ie'rque Po'IJGe' Se.partFn'ent, Alteuqu.er.qi.ie,.N15/1.. This nationally'rieQ'Q.griized pr,Gigram is the mode!,) for CGimrrumftfes (N/etQping sysitetns;'^ rednQ^ tljegai piptlvjly In fenctal prorpecty: :tf a^mjop^i-s.: ei ^re@. ^h^§^Kira@i>'attT' f<|^ ^^ttin<Nti^B;'6f ^P13: C^rtJS^ QaK!e: l=1-@e 'iVIuitj-Kf@usir)ig besigftatfetT t'e)^;prifeip@rt^6\/W©(^. This^rGgrarff mqu1'r6S.1:iit^ oWigiPs teimptetnenji s^s.^euiii:^ ?aNnQ, prQQ?(m.,,rieeeiv§ .QPTED^i'aintrtg, ^tnet^ jegtatetish a'neighhsjrh^dF wsitch1trgiN% pFQQrgtm, In addittem, ^%neF§ rm^t ;meet'

JanuaiyM.:;2W JAKW tlfe;E6:li6wi'hg tequirehhisrite: crime'free-lease adde.rtdums, tenant sGi-fegnJng, and ^riminsl bmKQroiund eh&cks.

jfessiefs Preledloin C.iaUrs^, 11 <£if1d ill, &:s^i?i^^¥sfi<^nt^nriarici^eme-nt: p!fjp!C|r^rrts ^2(H1, ^0(^ i^seityPKolecKlon 'C^fftirse: I, ^pnoeptjs gnd: Neth&ds; ^gi0U[rit^ VyIn^raNi^, Barriers, Lo^kirg <^onc!€!pj% fritTyston Oelectiori:, E(hia@,,&e^urity-l-igliting^ Ehlerg^hi^ Plahi-nn^ S@eui-ityi [Vlanagi.enTeFitt Se6Un{y ;anti .the. Law, 'V^Qrtcplaoe'^i&terieea. lii»e^Q^fo^,°EPe@e'ptiorl ©etecAlbn, :©PTBE,,AQcess' ©Gantml., y^&Ehets Pjha'ffictictCTMQUii-se II. ^raNj^l^Risilieatio.His; Finan^al' Fprensie' iR^e^jg^ttons for^ssef, RSo&ve^'ViolISinGe: RjSK %sse§^Tflie)lt atiej lht€tftfeFitioi% Iritei-roplnofi TigbMftiqu^, E)cei&Utiv6 ©^h-fmuniGatitih, lilte'fiial 0:0?ol^ <arganizai|i0i7ial.D^Vieio^rirterrt for ^e^urity'l^royesstoniafgi. QRifieal. $M^esgi;-Strat@g{e9:1br ]<j,o^ Leaders, Emp'loymerit Law ¥Qr:the ^eQari^y: Pr.^sgion.a!, I'n.fQrm.q.tiQ.n: gi^G.u.rity. A^Set^P'i'^tciCtiQiii OSoui^se- |llll,'Fi)n($fionaj. M.a.Qigement: ,}-jovy to'. BeQQma ^ TrUsteriT S'trafeQJi&.a^cNsoi', Sti?§tegylift:Atyfion, Business Goriiihyity', Stairidai-ds, Crisis Manu^em'^tt .Urii@gsNngl. yoOr L'ea^rstiip, Pb.tentialp.Untty; an'<j Leadership:

SeGUrity Officer IVlanageiffient (200,7)

<3(OnN<^©ecurit^: Doyetepin^ a Decision-meiKing .Pri&egss^YVorkplsiee; ¥iQlenG^ P'lannjhQ sn^ Response: t.essons l.egmecj 'frQm 'Virgirria ITech, (%Qn|r9(^js^rSy:;:^%)afs. Fgiir sind: :B&lA"i?9ld-:l-iabi.lity- grn?i: lci%urapi3e^, Priynte. Secsjycit^ InciUstry1;; TrMhcN atN P^I^<^y®,.^o^^^Gurit^'^tNc)airi3|^nd' G.ui^litte^^pilteatib'KaliGi ^U-FpltaTiicei'^Gcfrri^^ribg AppleiS fo'^ple^ UncteRstEfndmg^te i^-os^ari'el^on^^rOxifsour&in^, ii^tfritraidl:^ I'ifeasuFem'erit, P^rforfniancse-b^is-e^ ^onfradss^nGC.Sifh'ar jEimlity'^l^l^asLir^trienfe.lSonfrsists: iStaring.R isj^nc!'pFotjeGfm^i Nn?LiriBjLisin^ss,<R|=Ps; Developing ;Praptipg;l. |LigirTi^9s'T©el|i ?iat ^§tK, .^ j^i!; Pj-c(§pept?^: KbsV To Managfe &. ©ort-aot S;e©urity Relati6risHlt3%ifh;:gi &ustiam@r

<3<^W: From C^ntraGtoTSitQ^out-troom^ (2QCkg)

Using ^GTV tosrnitig^e thr^^ ;9Dcj :vu!nera^ilij;igs; at Ifscilifjes. WQrkin'g, KiTewliecilgfe opth'e Iate^e<2|Uiprrteht,;§ystgm's?,;and a^pliGalHWteGtinQ.iagie&'for C.GTV; AS^e^sihg tljgiital'vid^o'saipjyiieaifrong and fh"e selec:fi6h 'Qfapprojsriate

.Physical ^Sjspyrity: jRxiuapiceyEl Ap^plj|c^1pipn^&! TeGhnolpgy (2002)

Uri(a@t-^:Sndin;@| ?£ifTi6?r(|iThtj: tren<:i^ and latent teGl-iriQlog^ ipr^eorttlrol systems, Inte^nati'ng j:!^sicssil ic©tn]3iCTnSht%,^9i3ff'( lan:y pj^jgedUresl^T oois.lt eiff^(il;i\ire:. Qys^sms. Nanrih9;fe)r'pet;jtrieil:^rbarrj6r?&^teni@. ^cir^emn^ proee®s^s.t>r

JEW@I^IS, ;2t?3;4 JAB<2V Rage 6; of'7 pieDpl^, ^ehlefes, aftd; mat^tiials st'BtfeiS, ;0.|3'i§ra1:iR^ sysjtems^ ^datebSsei man&^m^nl: ^nd ^nhanfoerrrentetG .securify eentrQrsystem^..

FacKljt^ S^yrity I^esjgn^S^2).

InSfFUcHjon lln'^esi^'of'fuily-ii-rt^grsited ^tiySioal seigarit^ ptQQmi'ns. irrtegrafiOn ^ F0Ullfipie,«6i2urit^ Si^temsilri- (^@v@iici efteet te^lNw^ enwlrQrmTisrtN. s.eiouritfc.feifl'astru^re prolteoiron, buNifcig designs, inf^iWexA^ri^'lapiitf, d^fet^iions isystem^^fycturnl harriecs, 'aG;c©@& Qon.trp'ls, Q]Qn-i;nii.inic;9.tiQns; an.jdl (3;GTVlas?es?ment.

Physiteat Seeui-itys TeGhnolbgyAppliicafions j^ODI]

S^GMn^ R)isK and VuJngGafb.ility ^8e?s;m^rit, iSQniilLXiihg ^ £>it© ®iQry^, (ntrHSiion.^larrns, EJFeAl^rrn,s,.^GQgs^i^entre>(, 0GH'W,.i:9iy§[oalM9rt"tei'? 9^ pej'jim^tfsr Proji^ctt^n, S:ge]Q8r^ Personnel,: CPTE'D.,..Seeun;ty Ligihtirtg,, SfiGLlNty lJtigaii<3n;,,S^urity Erdeji^fi'ering

Janffis^t.5^?f WB'GSV Rage 7 pf 7

EXHIBIT C

RESUME Wednesday, February 1, 2013

Personal Information: Name: William E. Plynn Address: 100 Highland Park Village Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75205 Mobile: 214-202-7344 Fax:214-902-1766 E-mail: weflynn@legalpsychologist.cora

Academic History: Internship: 1977-1978, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Texas. PhD: 1970; University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Psychology. B.A: 1965; Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Psychology.

Professional Experience: 1978-2012: Independent Practice of Forensic and Clinical Psychology; Dallas, Texas. 1976-2012: Licensed Psychologist, Texas license #21400. 1999-2009: Consultant, Texas Department of Criminal justice, State Council for Offenders, Huntsville, Texas. 1996-2002: Clinical Committee, Survivors of Torture, Dallas, Texas. 1978-1980: Clinical Director of Psychology, Metroplex Clinics; Richardson, Texas. 1977-1978: Clinical and Research Psychologist, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Texas. 1970-1978: Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas; Director of Graduate Studies in Psychology. 1969-1970: Instructor, School of Nursing, University of South Carolina, and Columbia, South Carolina. 1968-1970: Research Fellow, V.A. Hospital; Columbia, South Carolina. 1966-1967: Alcohol abuse counselor/research assistant, Georgia Department of Mental Health; Atlanta, Georgia. 1963-1965: Research Associate, Department ofOtology, Henry Ford Hospital; Detroit, Michigan.

Memberships: American Psychological Association National Academy of Neuropsychology American Association of Correctional Psychology

EXHIBIT D

Joe G. Gonzales MD,FAAPMR/CLCP

BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Joe G. Gonzales is a Physical Medicine &. Rehabilitation, Pain Medicine, and Occupational &. Environmental Medicine specialist who has practiced Medicine in Texas since 1985.

He is the President of the Texas Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Institute, and the Founder and Medical Director of Physician Life Care Planning, LLC.

Dr. Gonzales is a licensed physician in the State of Texas; he is certified by the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, the American Board of Pain Medicine, and the American College of Occupational &. Environmental Medicine.

Dr. Gonzales is a Diplomat of the American Academy of Rain Management, a Designated Physician of the Texas Workers7 Compensation Commission, and a Certified Life Care Planner as designated by the Commission on Health Care Certification.

His professional affiliations include the American Medical Association, the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Physical Medicine &. Rehabilitation Society, the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, the American College of Occupational &. Environmental Medicine, the Mexican American Physician's Association, the International Academy of Life Care Planners, and the International Association of Rehabilitation.

Dr. Gonzales earned his M.D. from Texas Tech University's Health Science Center, and his Bachelors of Health Science degree from Baylor College of Medicine.

W Physician Life Care Planning America's Leading Ufe Care Planner

11550 IH 10 West

Suite 375

San Antonio, Texas 78230

Phone: (210) 501-0995

email: jgomd@physicianLCP.com

Page 1 of 1

3oeG. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR/CLCP

CURRICULUM VlTAE SPECIALTIES

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (Board Certified) Pain Management (Board Certified) Occupational & Environmental Medicine (Board Certified) Certified Life Care Planner

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Texas Tech University Health Science Center Degree: Doctor Of Medicine Lubbock, Texas 1980-1984

Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Medical Center Degree: Bachelor of Health Science Degree, Physician Assistant Certification Awards: Henry D, Mclntosh Award for Clinical Excellence Houston, Texas 1975-1977

Angela State University Department of Nursing Degree: Associate of Science &. Nursing (R.N.) San Angela, Texas 1971-1973

San Angela School of Vocational Nursing Degree; Diploma & Certification (Licensed) San Angela, Texas 1970-1971

POST GRADUATE TRAINING

Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation University of TexasHealth Science Center Residency, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation San Antonio, Texas 1985 - 1988

Department of Family Practice Texas Tech University Health Science Center Physician Life Care Planning Internship, Family Medicine AmencaS Leading Ufe Cam Planner ^ Lubbock, Texas 1984 - 1985

11550 IH 10 West

Suite 375

San Antonio, Texas 78230

Phone; (210) 501-0995

email: jgomd@physidanLCP.com

Page 1 of 4

Joe G. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR/CLCP

CURRICULUM VlTAE LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS

Texas Medical License - Physician Permit License Number: G8135 Issued: August 1985

American Board Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Board Certification Certificate Number: 3039 Issued; May 1989

American Board of Pain Medicine Board Certification Issued:1994

American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine Board Certification Status: Active Member Issued: 1992

American Academy of Pain Management Dlplomate 1992

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Approved Doctor List Certification Issued: 2003 (Re-certifled, 2009)

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Certificate, Maximum Medical Improvement & Assignment of Impairment Ratings Issued: 2003 (Re-certifled, 2009)

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Designated Doctor List Certification Issued: 2003 (Re-certifled, 2009)

Commission on Health Care Certification Certified Life Care Planner Issued: 2006 (Re-certlfled, 2009)

The University of Florida & MediPro Seminars, LLC Post Graduate Course Study in Life Care Planning Certificate of Completion Issued:2006

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

American Medical Association Texas Medical Association

Page 2 of 4

Joe G. Gonzales MD, FAAPMR, CLCP

CURRICULUM VlTAE Bexar County Medical Society Texas Physical Medicine & RehabilitaUon Society American Academy of Physical Medicine &. Rehabilitation American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine American College of Occupational &. Environmental Medicine American Academy of Pain Management - Diplomate Mexican American Hispanic Physician's Association International Academy of Life Care Planners The International Academy of Life Care Planners The International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Physician Life Care Panning , LLC Founder &. Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 2011- Present

Texas Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Institute President San Antonio, Texas 1998 - Present

Hyperbaric & Wound Care Associates, P.A. President San Antonio, Texas 2003 - 2006

Christus Santa Rosa Wound Care and Hyperbarlc Center Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 2004 - 2006

South Texas PM&R Group Founder & Past President San Antonio, Texas 1987 - 1998

Hyperbaric Oxygen, Inc. Total Wound Treatment Centers Corporate Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 1995 - 2000

Warm Springs & Baptist Rehabilitation Network Hyperbarlc Medicine & Wound Care Center Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 1995 - 2000

Page 3 of 4

Joe G. Gonzales MD,FAAPMR, CLCP

CURRICULUM VlTAE Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center NW Clinic & System Outpatient Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 1994 -1998

South Texas Rehabilitation Center (San Antonio's first Comprehensive Outpatient Physical Medicine &. Rehabilitation Center) Development & Medical Director San Antonio, Texas 1987 -1993

Rehabilitation Institute of San Antonio (RIOSA) Medical Director, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Medical Director, Spinal Cord Injur/ Rehabilitation Program Medical Director, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Program San Antonio, Texas 1988 -1993

South Plains Rehabilitation Center (Lubbock's first Comprehensive Outpatient Physical Medicine &. Rehabilitation Center) Associate & Active Developer Lubbock, Texas

(This Space Left Intentionally Blank)

Page 4 of 4

EXHIBIT E

JOHN A SWIGER, PH.D.

411 S.W. 24th Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207 (210) 434-6711 ex2499 FAX: (210)434-0821 cell: (210) 861-2772 home office 210-694-9111 jaswiger@ollusa.edu

CAREER fflSTORY/ACADEMIC

2003-Present Our Lady of the Lake University, San. Antonio, Texas Professor of Finance

1999 - 2006 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas Qiairman of Accounting. Economics and Finance Department

1991 - 2003 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas Associate Professor of Finance Taught graduate and undergraduate courses in Finance, Investments, International Finance, Economics, Modem Banking and International Business. Received Tenure-199 8

Summer 1991 University of Texas at Austin Summer 1992 Senior Lecturer of Finance Taught Investments in the MBA Program. Courses concentrated on investm.en.t valuation, and included a section on the economic valuation of human life.

1976-1980 University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas AssistaD.t Professor of Finance Taught courses in Capital Budgeting, Financial Management, Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management.

PUBLICATIONS:

Swiger, J., Haaimons, R., Robinett, S., aad Winney, K., "Management of Technological Change and Sustainable Economic Growth: Economic Factors (2011) Management of Technological Changes: Proceeduigs of the 7th International Conference on ]V[anagement of Technolocial Changes, September 1-3, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

Swiger, J., Hammons, R., Robinett, S., and Winney, K., "Management of Technological Change and Sustainable Economic Growth: Economic Recovery (2011) Management of Technological Changes: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Management of Technolocial Changes, September 1-3, Alexandroupolis, Greece.

^ Swiger, J., Wiimey, K., and Bender, B.," IFRS Convergence: A Crossroads For Post '^ - Secondary Accounting Education Programs" (2010) Quality M.anagement in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 6 International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (pp.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J. & Mudge, S. (2008). The Effect of Higher Education on Human Capital Formation: A Multinational stidy. The International Journal of Learning, 15(9), 227-236.

Swiger, J., Mudge, S., & Wise, S. (2008). U.S. and European Trends that Impact Human Capital Formation through Higher Education, Part 1: Rising EmoUment and Rising Costs of Higher Education. Quality Management in Higher Education; Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (PP.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J., Madge, S., &, Wise, S. (2008). U.S, and European Trends that Impact Human Capital Formation through Higher Education, Part 2: Human, capital Formation Through Higher Education. Quality Management in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 5 International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education (pp.). Tulcea, Romania.

Swiger, J., Mudge, S., & Pemiington, A. (2007). Combating Capital Flight Facilitated by Illegal Money Laundering - Challenges and Strategies: Part I: Rising Incidence and Excessive Costs. In N. Badea and C. Rusu (Eds.), Management of Technological Changes: Proceedings of the 5 International Conference on the Management of Technological Changes — Volume 1 (pp. 145-150). Alexandroupolis, Greece; Democritus University ofThrace.

Swiger, J., Pemungton, A., & Mudge, S. (2007). Combating Capital Flight Facilitated by Illegal Money Laundering - Challenges and Strategies: Part II: Legislative and Technological Responses. Management of Technological changes: Proceedings of the 5 International Conference on the Management of Technological Changes — Volume 1 (pp. 139-144). Alexandroupolis, Greece: Democritus University of Thrace.

Swiger, John & Mudge, Susan, "Managing Trends That Impact Human Capital Formation Through Higher Education, Part I: Rising Enrollment and Rising Costs of Higher Education" Proceedings of the 4 International Seminar on fh.e Quality Management in Higher Education, held in Sinaia, Romania, June 9-10, 2006.

Swiger, John & Mudge, Susan, "Managing Trends That Impact Human Capital Formation Through Higher Education, Part II: Preserving the Benefits of Human Capital Formation" Proceedings of the 4 International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education, held in Sinaia, Romania, June 9-10, 2006.

Swiger, John & Maloney, Tim, "A Reexamination of the Value of a Horaemaker Necessitated by Legal, Demographic and Business Changes and Trends—Part I"

/- Proceedings at the 4 Management of Technological Changes Conference in Chaina, Crete, Greece, August 2005.

Swiger, John & Maloney, Tim, "A Reexamination of the Value of a Homemaker Necessitated by Legal, Demographic and Business Changes and Trends—Part II" Proceedings at the 4th Management of Technological Changes Conference in Chaina, Crete, Greece, August 2005.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Kent C., "Analysis of the Department of Justice Regulations for the September 11th Victun Compensation Fund." Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 67(1). (Winter 2002). Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Kent C., "Analysis of the Department of Justice Regulations for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund." Lawyer Pilots Bar Association Journal, XXIV No. 1, Spring. 2002.

Swiger, John, & Krause, Charles F. "Proving Damages for Foreign Litigants."

New York Bar Journal, July, 1997.

Swiger, John & Klaus, Alien. "Capital Budgeting Guidelines for the Small Private University." Business Officer, March 1996.

Swiger, John. Study Guide: The Basics of Investing. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1979.

Swiger, John, and Scott Jones. Simplified Forecasting Techniques for Pmance and Industry. U.T.S.A. Continuing Education Department, 1979.

Numerous reviews of finance and investment texts written on an honorarium basis for the editors ofIvIcGraw-Hill, Wiley/Hamilton, and West Educational Publishing.

WORKING PAPERS

"Determming Economic Damages for the High Income Executive"

PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS

"Successful Handling of Wrongful Death Cases in Texas" a presentation conducted for attorneys and sponsored by Lorman Education Service. Dallas, Texas, July 27,2004.

"An Economic Analysis of the Department of Justice Victim Compensation Fund." Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 2002 Annual meeting, June 14,2002.

"The Airline Industry: A Time for Maximum Pessimism?" Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 2002 Annual meeting, June 14, 2002.

"What Every Trial Attorney Should Know About Proving Economic Damages." A presentation to the Bexar County Women's Bar Association. October 20, 2000.

"Fmancial Analysis and Credit Evaluation." Prepared expressly for and presented to the senior marketing staff of Fairchild Aviation, San. Antonio, Texas on March 17,1995.

"Proving Economic Damages for Litigants of Mexican Citizenry." A research paper presented at the Western Economic Association International Conference, San Diego, California, on July 6, 1995.

"Is a Minimum Wage Increase Justified?" A seminar at the First Friday Forum, KLRN Studio, San Antonio, Texas, February 3,1995.

"Proving Damages for Foreign Litigants." Presented to the Aviation Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, 1993 Annual meeting, June 18,1993.

Conducted seminars in Financial Forecasting for U.T.S.A. Contin-umg Education Department.

Conducted seminars in Financial Statement Analysis for the Small Business Administration.

MEDIA INTERVIEWS Interview with KENS TV regarding the impact of the Toyota recall on the San Antonio Toyota Tundra Manufacturing Plant, February 2010.

Numerous interviews with business reporters from the San Antonio Express-News radio talk shows and television news programs regardmg issues ranging from. minimum wage legislation to stock market activity to the closing ofKelly Air Force Base.

EDUCATION

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ph.D. 1976 Major: Finance Minor: Management Thesis Title:_ Commercial Strategy and Performance and Financial Policy

University of Richmond, B.S. in Business Administration Major: Marketing Minor: Economics

CAREER fflSTORY/BUSINESS

1990 - Present Business and Economic Consultant Provide economic and financial analysis to law firms, business firms and government agencies. Consulting activities include the determination of economic damages and losses in the following types of cases:

• Wrongful death and serious injury • Business Valuation • Business interruption and the abrogation of contracts • Sexual harassment, discrimination and wrongful termination • Tortious interference of business relationships and contracts

Other consulting activities include: • Feasibility stadies for manufacturing operations • Valuation analysis for closely held corporations

Sample Clients: • Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack • Pddhurst Orseck • Craddock Davis and Grouse • USAA • Mission City Management • Estate and Gift Division of the biternal Revenue Service

1977-1990 TNL Financial Inc., San Antonio, Texas President and Founder

Organized the firm in May 1977. By 1990, TNL comprised 34 vendors, 8,000 accounts, 18 employees, and $40,000,000 in assets. Administered day-to-day operations with emphasis in the areas of marketing, financial planning and control, and banking relations.

1968-1969 First & Merchants National Bank. Richmond, VA (now Bank of America) Credit Analyst

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 4/14/2015 4:10:19 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-13-04564-L

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

vs. § §

AJREDIN "DANNY" DEARI; DRITAN § KREKA; PASTAZIOS PIZZA, INC.; § ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGE- § MENT, INC.; HYATT HOTELS § CORPORATION; HYATT HOUSE § FRANCHISING, LLC; GRAND PRIX § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FLOATING LESSEE, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION II, LLC; INK § ACQUISITION III, LLC; INK LESSEE, § LLC; INK LESSEE HOLDING, LLC; § CHATHAM TRS HOLDING, INC.; § CHATHAM LODGING, LP; JEFFREY § H. FISHER, Individually; POST § PROPERTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-25 § 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO EXAMINE JANE DOE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW COMES Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and

Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership (referred collectively herein as "Defendants"), and file this

Motion for Emergency Hearing on their Joint Motion for Reconsideration to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe

for the following reasons:

1. Contemporaneously with the filing of this motion. Defendants are filing Defendants

Island Hospitality Management, Inc.'s, Post Properties, Inc.'s and Post Addison Circle Limited

Partnership's Joint Motion for Reconsideration to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendants' psychiatrist expert's (Dr. Lisa Clayton) deposition is currently set for Friday, April 17, 2015. As stated in the motion

for reconsideration. Dr. Clayton's opinions challenging Plaintiff's expert are currently based on the

information and data Plaintiffs expert obtained during his evaluation of Plaintiff. Unlike Plaintiffs expert

psychologist. Dr. Clayton has not had the opportunity to examine Plaintiff. The requested examination

would enable Dr. Clayton to explore Plaintiffs psychologist expert's opinions and potentially discover

additional facts that may contradict or bear upon his opinions. In the event the Court grants the Joint

Motion for Reconsideration, Dr. Clayton will have additional opinions in this case, and Plaintiff will likely

request a second deposition. In order to eliminate these contingencies, Defendants request Dr. Clayton's

deposition be postponed until after the Joint Motion for Reconsideration is determined by the Court and

the Court set the hearing on Defendants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration on April 15 or 16,2015,

FORTH ESE REASONS, Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc.,

and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership, respectfully request that this Honorable Court order an

emergency hearing on April 15 or 16 on Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc.'s, Post

Properties, Inc.'s, and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership's Joint Motion for Reconsideration

to Examine Plaintiff Jane Doe, postpone Dr. Clayton's deposition set for April 17, 2015, and grant

such further relief to which they are justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75201 (214)|220-5202 (dir set phone) (214)^20-5252 (dir tct fax)

By:

RAMONA MARTINEZ Texas Bar No. 13144010 email: rmartinez@cobbmartinez.com DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: ddenton@cobbmartinez.com MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: mlast@cobbmartinez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

and

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINGS, & IRONS, L.L.P. 700 N. Pearl, 25th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 871-8228 (direct phone) (214^371-8209

RAIMpV A. NELSON IvJ/pp^,.,^^ Texas Bar No. 14904800 Vf^S^J email: rnelson@thompsoncoe.com SARAH L ROGERS Texas Bar No. 24046239 Email: srogers@thompsoncoe.com

ATTORNEYS FOR POST PROPERTIES, INC. AND POSTADDISON CIRCLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference at which there was a substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motion, and despite best efforts, the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented.

Certified to this 14th day of April, 201

DAVIDSTDEISJTON

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record by e-service, email, certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular U.S. mail on this 14th day of April, 2015:

Trey Crawford Dritan Kreka Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank 5549 Big River Drive 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 The Colony, TX 75056 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Defendant Kreka fax: 214.855.6808 Attorney for Plaintiff

Samuel H.Johnson Randy A. Nelson Johnson Broome, PC Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 700 North Pearl Street Frisco, TX 75034 25th Floor - Plaza of the Americas fax: 972.584.6054 Dallas, TX 75201 Attorney for Defendants Deari & Attorney for Post Properties Pastazios Pizza

RAMONA MARTTNEZ' DAVID S. DENTON

Doc. #136066

000210

DC-13-04564

JANE DOE, Plaintiff (s), I n t h e D i s t r i c t Court v. of D a l l a s County r d

193 J u d i c i a 1

A J R E D I N " D A N N Y " D E A R I ; E T . AL. District Defendant (s).

O R D E R D E N Y I N G MOTIONS T O RECONSIDER M O T I O N T O A L L O W PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

O N THIS DAY came to be heard, by submission, Defendants' Motions to Reconsider Motion to Allow Psychological Examination. Having considered the motions, the Court hereby DENIES them.

SO O R D E R E D this Thursday, April 16, 2015.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO ALLOW PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION Page Solo