in Re Union Pacific Railroad Company

Opinion

ACCEPTED

01-15-00600-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/10/2015 5:17:45 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

NO. 01-15-00600-CV

FILED IN

1st COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/10/2015 5:17:45 PM

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXASCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

AT HOUSTON

In re:

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

Relator.

MANDAMUS REPLY

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN PC

Kent Rutter Marcy Lynn Rothman State Bar No. 00797364 State Bar No. 17318500 Christina Crozier M. Daniel Guerra State Bar No. 24050466 State Bar No. 00793865 1221 McKinney, Suite 2100 Galleria Tower II, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77010-2007 5051 Westheimer Road Telephone: (713) 547-2000 Houston, Texas 77056 Telecopier: (713) 547-2600 Telephone: (713) 425-7444 Kent.Rutter@haynesboone.com Telecopier: (713) 425-7700 Christina.Crozier@haynesboone.com MRothman@krcl.com DGuerra@krcl.com

Attorneys for Relator,

Union Pacific Railroad Company

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT IN REPLY .......................................................................................... 2

I. The Trichels misrepresent the facts ................................................................. 2

II. Union Pacific met its burden to make a prima facie showing that the consulting expert privilege and work product doctrine apply ................... 4

A. The party resisting discovery has the burden to present a minimum quantum of evidence supporting the privilege ..................... 4

B. Koenig’s affidavit provided the minimum quantum of evidence to support Union Pacific’s objections .................................... 5

C. Koenig’s affidavit met all procedural requirements ............................. 7

III. Union Pacific did not waive the consulting expert privilege .......................... 8

A. Union Pacific did not waive the consulting expert privilege by filing Koenig’s affidavit ................................................................... 8

B. The offensive use doctrine does not apply because Union Pacific does not assert any affirmative claims .................................... 10

C. Union Pacific did not waive the privilege by attempting to work with the Trichels to preserve evidence....................................... 11

IV. The consulting expert privilege is not defeated simply because testifying experts read Koenig’s affidavit ..................................................... 12

V. Union Pacific was not required to specify every objectionable question in its mandamus petition ................................................................. 13

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ............................................................................. 14

VERIFICATION ...................................................................................................... 16

-i-

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 18

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................Tab A

- ii -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1990) ................................................................1, 7, 12, 13

In re BP Products N. Am. Inc., 263 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) .... 4, 6

In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 136 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. 2004) ............................................................................ 4, 6

In re Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., No. 12-08-00397-CV, 2009 WL 1028056 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 15, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ..........................................................7, 12

In re Mendez, 234 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, orig. proceeding) ....................... 1, 9

In re Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) .......................... 7, 8

Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. 1993) ........................................................................10, 11

In re Union Pac. Resources Co., 22 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 1999)................................................................................... 5

West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1978) ................................................................................ 1

RULES TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(e) .....................................................................................12, 13

TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5 .................................................................................................. 5

TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.7 .................................................................................................. 5

TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.4 .................................................................................................. 5

TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.3 .................................................................................................. 7

TEX. R. CIV. P. 199.6 ..........................................................................................4, 5, 7

- iii -

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant disconnect between Union Pacific’s Mandamus

Petition and the Trichels’ Response. The Trichels do not cite, much less respond

to, the Texas Supreme Court case that governs dual-capacity experts, Axelson, Inc.

v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1990). The Trichels also do not cite or respond

to the Texas Supreme Court case which suggests that privilege objections raised in

depositions should be addressed on a question-by-question basis. See West v.

Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tex. 1978). The Trichels also do not confront In re

Mendez, which holds that if a consulting expert’s mental impressions and opinions

are included in an affidavit, the consulting expert privilege is waived only as to

those mental impressions and opinions contained in the affidavit. 234 S.W.3d 105,

111 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, orig. proceeding).

Those arguments that the Trichels do address are without merit. Contrary to

the Trichels’ position, Union Pacific met its burden to make a prima facie showing

that the consulting expert privilege and work product doctrine apply, and it did not

waive the privileges. The trial court abused its discretion by finding that the

protections of the consulting expert privilege and work product doctrine were

completely destroyed.

ARGUMENT IN REPLY

I. The Trichels misrepresent the facts.

The Trichels devote a significant portion of their Mandamus Response to

setting forth a “statement of facts” detailing matters that are deeply disputed and

irrelevant to the discreet issue presented in the Mandamus Petition. However,

Union Pacific must respond to the Trichels’ statement of facts to briefly correct a

few key inaccuracies.

The Trichels take the mandamus record out of context when they contend

that Union Pacific tells “three contradictory stories” about Hampton’s phone.

Because Union Pacific was not present when Hampton’s phone was reset, Union

Pacific relies on Hampton’s explanation about what happened to his phone.

According to Hampton, he went to the Verizon store because his phone’s screen

and battery were malfunctioning. (R8 at Ex. C at 173-75, 177-78.) Hampton asked

the Verizon technician to “fix” the phone, and the technician suggested a “reset.”

(R8 at Ex. C at 178-79.)

Union Pacific’s communications about the reset are all in accord with one

another and reflect Hampton’s account. See Mandamus Petition at p. 3 (“Hampton

went to Verizon Wireless to fix the phone, where a Verizon technician suggested

that the phone be reset. . . . Not fully realizing that this procedure might erase data,

Hampton agreed to reset the phone.”); R9 Ex. 1 (Union Pacific’s counsel told the

3

Trichels’ counsel: “Regarding Hampton’s phone . . . this apparently was done by

his service provider inadvertently during the diagnosis of a battery problem.”); R10

at 4 (“. . . the Verizon technician suggested that the phone be reset. Not fully

realizing that this reset procedure might erase data from the phone, and thinking all

of his data had already been imaged anyway, Hampton approved the technician’s

suggestion and had the phone reset.”).

In reality, it is the Trichels who take inconsistent positions. In their

Mandamus Response, the Trichels contend that “the destruction of . . . data

occurred on June 22, 2014, while Koenig was actively working with Hampton.”

(Mandamus Response at 1.) However, in a motion to disqualify Union Pacific’s

counsel currently pending in the trial court, the Trichels argue that “the wipe or ‘re-

set’ of the phone does not occur until October 14, 2014.” (2d Supp. R24 at 3.) The

Trichels select this later date in their motion to disqualify so that they can argue

(incorrectly) that Union Pacific’s counsel knew about the reset before it happened.

(Supp. R24 at 3.) Thus, the Trichels contend that the reset occurred on June 22,

2014 when it benefits them in their mandamus arguments in this Court, and that the

reset occurred on October 14, 2014 when it benefits them in their disqualification

arguments in the trial court. The spoliation allegations against Union Pacific and

the motion to disqualify Union Pacific’s counsel are part of an ongoing series of

aggressive litigation tactics that the Trichels have employed throughout this case.

4

When the Trichels finally reach the merits of their arguments in their

Mandamus Response, it is evident that the trial court abused its discretion.

II. Union Pacific met its burden to make a prima facie showing that the consulting expert privilege and work product doctrine apply.

Contrary to the Trichels’ arguments, Koenig’s affidavit satisfied the

minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support the consulting expert privilege

and work product doctrine.

A. The party resisting discovery has the burden to present a minimum quantum of evidence supporting the privilege.

The Trichels contend that Union Pacific did not meet its burden to show

privilege, but they overstate the burden. The party resisting discovery has the

burden to make a “prima facie showing” that a privilege applies. In re E.I. DuPont

de Nemours and Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 223, 225 (Tex. 2004); In re BP Products N.

Am. Inc., 263 S.W.3d 106, 111-12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig.

proceeding). “The prima facie standard requires only the ‘minimum quantum of

evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is

true.’” E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 136 S.W.3d at 223.

If a party requests a hearing on an objection or privilege asserted during a

deposition, the party asserting the privilege must present “any evidence necessary

to support the objection or privilege either by testimony at the hearing or by

affidavits served on opposing parties at least seven days before the hearing.” TEX.

5

R. CIV. P. 199.6 (emphasis added); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.4.1 As the words

“any evidence necessary” suggest, “evidence may not always be necessary to

support a claim of protection from discovery.” In re Union Pac. Resources Co., 22

S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 1999).

B. Koenig’s affidavit provided the minimum quantum of evidence to support Union Pacific’s objections.

Union Pacific easily met its burden. To make a prima facie case that the

consulting expert privilege applies, Union Pacific simply had to show that Koenig

was an expert who is “consulted, retained, or specially employed by [Union

Pacific] in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial, but who is not a

testifying expert.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.7. To make a prima facie case that the work

product doctrine applies, Union Pacific simply had to show that (1) Koenig is

Union Pacific’s representative, consultant, or agent, and (2) that Koenig’s

materials, mental impressions, and communications with Union Pacific were

developed or made in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial. TEX. R. CIV.

P. 192.5.

Koenig’s affidavit met the “minimum quantum of evidence” necessary to

show that the consulting expert privilege and work product doctrine apply. The

affidavit shows that Koenig is a consultant engaged by Union Pacific. It states that

1 Although the Trichels rely on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4, Rule 199.6 governs privilege objections asserted during a deposition. The rules are similar, but not identical. Both require only that a party present “any evidence necessary” to support the privilege.

6

Koenig is a “Director of Franklin Data” and that “Franklin Data was retained by

Union Pacific Railroad Company (‘Union Pacific’) to preserve data from the cell

phone of James Wilson and Jeremy Hampton.” (R8 at Ex. B at 1; R10 at Ex. B at

1.) Koenig’s affidavit also shows that he was retained in preparation for trial. It

states that Koenig’s work preserving the data began on May 13, 2014, which was

more than two weeks after the Trichels filed suit. (R8 at Ex. B at 1; R10 at Ex. B at

1; see also R1.)

The Trichels argue that Koenig’s affidavit was insufficient because Koenig

did not “designate” himself as a “consulting or dual-capacity expert” and did not

specifically state that he was retained “in anticipation of litigation,” but such

conclusory statements are not required. (Mandamus Response at 24-25, 26-27.)

Affidavits need only state the “factual basis” for application of the privilege. E.I.

DuPont de Nemours, 136 S.W.3d at 224; BP Prods. N. Am., 263 S.W.3d at 113.

Conclusory statements that the privilege applies are not only unnecessary—they

are insufficient to prove the privilege. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 136 S.W.3d at

224; BP Prods. N. Am., 263 S.W.3d at 113.

The Trichels also suggest that Koenig is not a consulting expert because

“after filing its petition for writ of mandamus, UP designated Koenig to testify to

matters in his ‘deposition as well as any other information they may have.’”

(Mandamus Response at 25, citing Supp. R23 at 12.) However, the Trichels fail to

7

mention that Union Pacific designated Koenig as a person with knowledge of

relevant facts, not as a testifying expert. (Supp. R23 at 12.) Under Axelson, the

privilege is not destroyed simply because Koenig is both a fact witness and a

consulting expert. See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex.

1990); see also In re Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., No. 12-08-00397-CV, 2009

WL 1028056, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 15, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.).

C. Koenig’s affidavit met all procedural requirements.

Although the Trichels rely heavily on Koenig’s affidavit in their Mandamus

Response, they pretend as if it was not properly before the court during the hearing

on Union Pacific’s objections. (See, e.g., R15 at 6, 14, 17.) But Koenig’s affidavit

met all procedural requirements under Rule 199.6. The affidavit was timely

because it was filed more than seven days before the hearing on Union Pacific’s

objections. TEX. R. CIV. P. 199.6; see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.3. Union Pacific

filed Koenig’s affidavit on January 16, 2015 and again on May 27, 2015, well in

advance of the trial court’s June 24, 2015 hearing. (R8 at Ex. B; R10 at Ex. B.)

The Trichels complain that “UP did not offer any evidence” supporting the

privileges, but Union Pacific had no obligation to formally offer the affidavit into

evidence at the hearing. A formal offer is not required if “the record of the hearing

shows that the parties and the court undisputedly considered the affidavits.” In re

8

Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d 917, 926 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding).

Here, the record shows that the trial court considered the affidavit in reaching its

ruling. In summarizing the parties’ dispute, the trial court stated:

I’ve got an affidavit here wherein Mr. Koenig . . . makes certain statements regarding his investigation into a cell phone, the downloading of information and the forensic examination of a cell phone that’s at issue in this lawsuit. . . . And Mr. Koenig is a forensic computer examiner, and he has provided an affidavit . . . as to the investigation he made into the contents of that cell phone and in this affidavit has made several factual statements . . . .

(R15 at 4-5; App. A.) The trial court also stated that it overruled Union Pacific’s

objections “based on evidence that’s before me, the affidavit that I’m looking at

right now.” (R15 at 18; App. A.)

There is no question that the affidavit was before the court and it satisfied

the minimum quantum of evidence to make a prima facie showing.

III. Union Pacific did not waive the consulting expert privilege.

All of the Trichels’ attempts to show that Union Pacific waved the privilege

fail.

A. Union Pacific did not waive the consulting expert privilege by filing Koenig’s affidavit.

The Trichels argue that privilege “never attached,” or alternatively was

waived, because Koenig’s affidavit contained opinions in addition to factual

matters. (Mandamus Response at 25-26, 28-30, 33.) According to the Trichels, the

9

affidavit included opinions about “the status of data on the phones in question,

whether the data was or is readable, whether data exists, how much data exists, and

the reason for the 39-day delay in obtaining the data from Hampton’s phone that

allowed the data to be erased.” (Mandamus Response at 19.) These matters all

concerned factual information known by Koenig. But even if some statements in

the affidavit could be construed as mental impression or opinions, the privilege still

applies as to Koenig’s undisclosed mental impressions and opinions. See In re

Mendez, 234 S.W.3d 105, 107 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, orig. proceeding).

The Trichels do not confront In re Mendez, which sets forth the rule for

consulting experts who disclose some opinions in an affidavit. 234 S.W.3d 105,

107 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, orig. proceeding). In that case, the defendant’s

consulting expert filed an affidavit opining that the plaintiff’s medical treatment

was excessive and unnecessary. The court held that, by filing the affidavit, the

defendant waived the consulting expert privilege “as to those matters stated in the

affidavit.” Id. at 111. However, the court made clear that its “opinion should not be

read as holding that [the defendant] waived the consulting expert privilege with

respect to the other opinions and mental impressions held by [the consulting

expert] which are not stated in the affidavit.” Id. The consulting expert privilege

continued to protect the expert as to other matters. Id.

10

The same rule applies here. None of the statements contained in Koenig’s

affidavit are privileged, whether the statements are construed as expressing facts or

opinions. However, Koenig’s mental impressions and opinions that are not

contained in Koenig’s affidavit remain privileged. The trial court misapplied the

law and abused its discretion when it determined that the consulting expert

privilege was completely destroyed as to all mental impressions and opinions,

regardless of whether the statements appeared in Koenig’s affidavit. (R15 at 21-22;

App. A.)

B. The offensive use doctrine does not apply because Union Pacific does not assert any affirmative claims.

Unable to show that the mere filing of an affidavit waives the privilege in its

entirety, the Trichels attempt to establish waiver through the offensive use

doctrine. Because the offensive use doctrine applies only to parties who are

seeking affirmative relief, the Trichels make a strained argument that Union

Pacific asserts affirmative claims against them. See Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856

S.W.2d 158, 164 (Tex. 1993).

Union Pacific’s position is strictly defensive in nature. Union Pacific is not

seeking any counterclaims against the Trichels, and it has not moved for sanctions

against the Trichels. The Trichels contend that Union Pacific made a “claim” in a

“pleading” that the Trichels’ position was groundless and brought in bad faith, but

they fail to mention that the “pleading” in which Union Pacific made these

11

statements was Union Pacific’s Response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.

(Mandamus Response at 30-31; R8.) In its Response, Union Pacific was simply

defending against the Trichels’ allegations of spoliation.

Because Union Pacific does not seek affirmative relief against the Trichels,

the offensive use doctrine does not apply. See Republic Ins., 856 S.W.2d at 164

(holding that the offensive use doctrine did not apply to an insurer which filed a

declaratory judgment action, because the relief sought by the insurer was “in

reality, defensive in nature”).

C. Union Pacific did not waive the privilege by attempting to work with the Trichels to preserve evidence.

In an even greater stretch, the Trichels next suggest that Union Pacific

waived the consulting expert privilege when it sent a letter to the Trichels’ counsel

suggesting ways that the parties could work together to preserve evidence. The

letter showed that Union Pacific cooperated with the Trichels to preserve a wide

range of evidence. (R8 at Ex. A.) The letter also informed the Trichels that Union

Pacific had “hired a consultant to download a forensic copy of the driver’s phone”

who had encountered difficulties downloading the contents of Hampton’s phone.

(R8 at Ex. A at 2.)

Contrary to the Trichels’ argument, Union Pacific’s letter did not invite the

Trichels to work directly with Koenig, and the letter did not show any intent by

Union Pacific to waive the privilege. The Trichels’ assertion that Union Pacific’s

12

letter somehow waived privilege is completely baseless. See In re Energy Transfer

Partners, L.P., No. 12-08-00397-CV, 2009 WL 1028056, at **5-6 (Tex. App.—

Tyler Apr. 15, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding there was no waiver

when the defendants told plaintiffs in an email that they would review the

consulting expert’s survey and “let [plaintiffs] know what we find”).

IV. The consulting expert privilege is not defeated simply because testifying experts read Koenig’s affidavit.

The Trichels also contend that the consulting expert privilege does not apply

because two testifying experts reviewed mental impressions and opinions in

Koenig’s affidavit. The Trichels insist that the affidavit contained mental

impressions and opinions, but they fail to point to a single sentence in the affidavit

that qualifies as a mental impression or opinion. Koenig’s statements about the

data on Hampton’s phone were all factual in nature, and Koenig disclosed those

facts during his deposition, as he was required to do under Axelson, Inc. v.

McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990).

To the extent that any of Koenig’s statements fall into a gray area that might

be construed as either fact or opinion, the consulting expert privilege still applies.

The privilege protecting the consulting expert’s “identity, mental impressions, and

opinions” is broken only if a testifying expert reviewed the consulting expert’s

“mental impressions and opinions.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(e) (“The identity, mental

impressions, and opinions of a consulting expert whose mental impressions and

13

opinions have not been reviewed by a testifying expert are not discoverable.”). The

two identical references to mental impressions and opinions in Rule 192.3(e)

logically refer to the same mental impressions and opinions—and not two

completely different sets of information. Thus, the Trichels’ suggestion that a

testifying expert’s review of the statements in Koenig’s affidavit destroys the

privilege as to the mental impressions and opinions that they seek to obtain through

discovery runs afoul of Rule 192.3(e).

The Trichels’ interpretation of the rule would also demolish the Texas

Supreme Court’s holding in Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.

1990). Axelson allows a consulting expert to retain the privilege while disclosing

information within his factual knowledge. If the proponent of the evidence could

easily recast information within a consulting expert’s factual knowledge as an

opinion, then he could always destroy the privilege by asking a testifying expert

review the information. The Trichels—who completely ignore Axelson in their

Response—do not consider the interplay between Axelson and Rule 192.3(e).

V. Union Pacific was not required to specify every objectionable question in its mandamus petition.

Finally, the Trichels argue that Union Pacific waived “the bulk” of its

objections by failing to record each and every objectionable question in its

mandamus petition. (Mandamus Response at 38.) In making this argument, the

Trichels overlook the trial court’s ruling that the consulting expert privilege and

14

work product doctrine do not protect the answers to any questions. (R15 at 17-18,

21-22; App. A.) The trial court ruled that Koenig’s status as a consulting expert

was “completely destroyed.” (R15 at 21-22; App. A.) The trial court also refused

to rule on Union Pacific’s objections on a question-by-question basis because he

did not know how to “piecemeal it” without “removing the complete status of a

consulting expert.” (R15 at 21-22; App. A.) Thus, it was not necessary to set forth

each and every objectionable question in the mandamus petition. The trial court

abused its discretion by finding that the protections of the consulting expert

privilege and work product doctrine were destroyed as to all matters.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Union Pacific respectfully requests that this Court (1) grant its mandamus

petition, (2) issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order

overruling Union Pacific’s privilege objections and finding that Koenig’s

consulting expert status was destroyed, and (3) grant all further relief to which

Union Pacific is entitled.

15

Respectfully submitted,

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter State Bar No. 00797364 Christina Crozier State Bar No. 24050466 1221 McKinney, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77010-2007 Telephone: (713) 547-2000 Telecopier: (713) 547-2600 Kent.Rutter@haynesboone.com Christina.Crozier@haynesboone.com

KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN PC

Marcy Lynn Rothman State Bar No. 17318500 M. Daniel Guerra State Bar No. 00793865 Galleria Tower II, 10th Floor 5051 Westheimer Road Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7444 Telecopier: (713) 425-7700 MRothman@krcl.com DGuerra@krcl.com

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

16

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS § §

COUNTY OF HARRIS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Marcy Lynn Rothman, who, being by me duly sworn on her oath, deposed and said that she is an attorney for Relator, Union Pacific Railroad Company; that she has read the foregoing Mandamus Reply; that the factual statements contained therein, not independently proved or verified through the mandamus record, are true and correct; and that the documents included in the Appendix to the Mandamus Reply are true and correct copies of the originals.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 10th day of August, 2015.

~~ Notary Public in and for the State of Texas

17

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3)

I hereby certify that this Mandamus Reply contains a total of 3,290 words, excluding the parts of the reply exempted under TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), as verified by Microsoft Word 2010. This Mandamus Reply is therefore in compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C).

Dated: August 10, 2015.

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter Counsel for Relator, Union Pacific Railroad Company

18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the Mandamus Reply has been served on Respondent and the following counsel of record via e-service on this 10th day of August, 2015: Respondent: Honorable Kyle Carter 125th District Court 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Counsel for Real Parties in Interest, Donald and Mary Trichel, Individually and as Next Friends of Nicholas Trichel: Vuk S. Vujasinovic Brian Beckcom VB ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77057

Levon Hovnatanian Dale Jefferson MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON & WISDOM Niels Esperson Building 808 Travis, 20th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Counsel Real Party in Interest Jeremy Ray Hampton: Adolfo R. Rodriguez, Jr. Wilson C. Aurbach Christopher K. Rusek RODRIGUEZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3850 Dallas, Texas 75201

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter

APPENDIX

Tab A — Motions Hearing, June 24, 2015

TAB A

Motions Hearing, June 24, 2015

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 1

1 NO. 2014-23177

2

DONALD AND MARY TRICHEL, * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 3 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT * FRIENDS OF NICHOLAS TRICHEL * 4 *

*

5 VS. * HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

*

6 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY* AND JEREMY RAY HAMPTON * 125TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

7

8

9 *********************************** MOTIONS HELD BEFORE

10

THE HONORABLE KYLE CARTER

11

JUNE 24, 2015

12 ***********************************

13

14 MOTIONS HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE KYLE CARTER were 15 taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 24th 16 of June, 2015, from 1:56 p.m. to 2:27 p.m., before 17 Debbie Boothe, CSR, in and for the State of Texas, 18 reported by machine shorthand at the Harris County Civil 19 Courthouse, 125th Judicial District Court Jury Room, 20 201 Caroline Street, 10th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, 21 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the 22 provisions stated in the record or attached hereto.

23

24

25

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

3

Mr. Brian Beckcom

4 Mr. Vuk Vujasinovic VB Attorneys, PLLC

5 6363 Woodway, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77057

6 (713) 224-7800 (713) 224-7801 Facsimile brian@vbattorneys.com

7 vuk@vbattorneys.com

8

FOR THE DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

9

Mr. Daniel Guerra

10 Kane, Russell, Coleman & Logan, P.C.

919 Milam Street, Suite 2200 11 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 425-7400 (713) 425-7700 Facsimile 12 dguerra@krcl.com

13

FOR THE DEFENDANT JEREMY RAY HAMPTON:

14

Mr. Wilson C. Aurbach

15 The Rodriguez Law Firm 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3850 16 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 220-2932 (214) 220-2920 Facsimile 17 waurbach@therodriguezfirm.com

18

THE COURT:

19

The Honorable Kyle Carter 20 125th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 21 201 Caroline Street, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

22 (713) 368-6141

23

OTHER APPEARANCES:

24

Mr. Paul Price

25

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 3

1 INDEX

2

3 WITNESS: WILL KOENIG 4 PAGE 5 Appearances 2 6 Proceedings 4 7 Reporter's Certification 26

8

9 * * * * * *

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 4

1 MOTION PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE CARTER: Now we're on the record at 3 this time. This is Judge Carter. I've come in to rule 4 on an issue that's been brought to my attention during a 5 deposition that's occurring in the Court's jury room 6 today. The issue that's been brought to the Court's 7 attention is whether or not a consulting expert, 8 actually a witness that has been represented to be a 9 dual capacity witness, a fact witness in addition to a 10 consulting expert, Mr. Will Koenig, or Koenig, whether 11 or not his underlying impressions and work product is 12 discoverable in this case as a result of either waiver 13 or disclosure, or I think plaintiff's counsel you also 14 argued by offensive use in this case. 15 Specifically, we've got -- I've got an 16 affidavit here wherein Mr. Koenig represents certain -- 17 or makes certain statements regarding his investigation 18 into a cell phone, the downloading of information and 19 the forensic examination of a cell phone that's at issue 20 in this lawsuit. Specifically, plaintiff has the 21 question of why was this cell phone that was the driver 22 of the 18-wheeler -- why was that cell phone essentially 23 wiped clean. 24 And Mr. Koenig is a forensic computer 25 examiner, and he has provided an affidavit into the

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 5

1 investigation as to the investigation he made into the 2 contents of that cell phone and in this affidavit has 3 made several factual statements regarding his efforts to 4 try to download the information contained on the phone, 5 review the data that was on the phone, what was 6 identified as a result of his search, some difficulties 7 that Mr. -- that the witness had, Mr. Koenig had, in 8 trying to retrieve this data, and identification of the 9 specific software he used in attempting to retrieve this 10 data. And so I just want to tee it up now and invite 11 Mr. Vujasinovic to go ahead and make your argument now. 12 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Certainly, Judge. As a 13 reminder, Union Pacific has the burden to establish the 14 existence of any privilege. They also have the burden 15 of proving no waiver occurred when there's a charge of a 16 waiver. 17 Union Pacific has been waiving around this 18 affidavit since they produced it six months ago by 19 attaching it to their pleading opposing our motion to 20 compel this cell phone data. They've also used it to 21 defend against the charge that Union Pacific spoliated 22 evidence, which is a charge also alleged towards their 23 former employee, Mr. Hampton, and they've used it in 24 several other pleadings in this case. 25 They claim the consulting expert privilege

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 6

1 applies. It does not for three reasons: Number one, 2 they've waived the consulting expert privilege by 3 offensively using it in the manner I've described, by 4 disclosing it to us and publicly as a matter of the 5 public record consistently; number two, it's been 6 reviewed by a testifying expert, and under the Texas 7 Rules of Civil Procedure, when that occurs the alleged 8 consulting expert becomes a fully retained expert that 9 we can question as any other retained expert. The 10 testifying expert who reviewed Mr. Koenig's affidavit is 11 our expert, Mr. Paul Price, who is also a forensics 12 expert. And the case law says it doesn't matter whether 13 the testifying expert who reviewed the alleged 14 consulting expert's materials is on the same side or the 15 other side. And finally, the defense already admits now 16 that Mr. Koenig is, in fact, a dual capacity witness, 17 and by doing so, they've admitted he did obtain 18 firsthand knowledge and evidence through his work in 19 this case. 20 And just by way of an example, there's a 21 2009 opinion, In Re: Energy Transfer Partners, and this 22 case said -- specifically talks about how a party may 23 waive the consulting expert privilege, and it cites the 24 host of cases that talk about how it can be waived by 25 offensive use, by voluntarily disclosing privileged

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 7

1 information, by filing a controverting affidavit. And 2 so that's the nutshell of the reasons why, Your Honor, 3 we respectfully request you overrule their objection and 4 privilege assertions. 5 JUDGE CARTER: Response? 6 MR. GUERRA: Okay. As an initial matter, I 7 would like to point the Court at Axelson -- Axelson, 8 Inc. It's a Supreme Court case 1990, 798 S.W.2d at 550. 9 It has a whole section on dual capacity, but 10 specifically it says "The consulting expert exemption 11 protects the identity, mental impressions and opinions 12 of consulting-only experts, but not the facts." So what 13 this case says very clearly is if -- if you have someone 14 who is a consulting-only expert but has gained firsthand 15 knowledge, that they are dual capacity, and that's 16 exactly what Mr. Koenig is in this case. He went out 17 and he took forensic images -- or attempted to take 18 forensic images of these phones, and as a result that is 19 firsthand knowledge. And with respect to that, he is 20 clearly a fact witness. With respect to his opinions or 21 mental impressions, that is a consult -- he is a 22 consulting expert. And that case is very clear that you 23 can be both, and just because you're one doesn't mean 24 that you automatically waive the second. 25 With respect to their argument that because

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 8

1 their testifying expert reviewed his facts, that all of 2 a sudden he has turned into a testifying expert, he 3 loses a consulting-only expert protection, I would point 4 the Court at Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192 that says 5 "A party may discover the following information from a 6 testifying expert or regarding a consulting expert whose 7 mental impressions or opinions have been reviewed by a 8 testifying expert." It doesn't say anything about the 9 facts gathered by that testifying -- by that consulting 10 expert. 11 So I would say -- I haven't seen the case, 12 and Counsel hasn't provided any source citation, but I 13 would suspect that it talks about mental impressions or 14 opinions. So that argument is out the window. 15 Basically what we have here, if you sort of 16 think about it in the abstract, it's like a car wreck. 17 You have someone who goes out and measures skid marks 18 and takes samples from the concrete and does all sorts 19 of things, and he forwards on those facts. That 20 doesn't -- he is clearly a fact witness with respect to 21 those things, but that doesn't mean that you get to ask 22 him questions about "Well, what does that skid mark mean 23 to you? What does that chip in the concrete mean to 24 you?" 25 So we have not made any attempt -- we

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 9

1 haven't waived anything, and under Axelson we are 2 absolutely under an objection to disclose firsthand 3 information that they gather. But that doesn't mean 4 that we -- they lose -- that Koenig loses his protection 5 as a consulting-only expert. And for that reason, we 6 think we fully complied with the discovery rules and 7 that they shouldn't be permitted to ask him about his 8 opinions, impressions, directions from counsel, 9 communications with counsel or -- or the client. 10 MR. BECKCOM: In fairness, the analogy -- 11 MR. AURBACH: Hold on, I want to weigh in 12 here, Mr. Beckcom. 13 MR. BECKCOM: Sure. 14 MR. AURBACH: You can go ahead after me, if 15 it's all right. 16 Your Honor, my name is Wilson Aurbach. I 17 represent Mr. Hampton in this case. I don't think you 18 and I have met. I wasn't at the last hearing. 19 I want to say initially -- I'm not sure if 20 it's on the record or not -- but I disagree with the 21 insinuation that the affidavit from Mr. Koenig points to 22 my client as doing something incorrect. Secondly, I 23 also disagree that the data that we're discussing in 24 this case and relevant data to the case is gone. 25 Mr. Hampton has produced cell phone records, text

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 10

1 message records and then several thousand pages of 2 Facebook records in this case that plaintiffs have 3 claimed are relevant in this case. Those have been 4 produced. Also, there's 1.15 gigabytes of data that was 5 obtained in a download by Mr. Koenig's efforts long ago. 6 That download was not completely -- completely 7 successful. That's why we're here today. We've been 8 discussing the details of the download. Why it wasn't 9 successful I have no doubt is going to be a subject of 10 expert testimony, and those experts will have no more 11 information about what happened downloading the 12 cell phone at each attempt than the information that is 13 already available to everybody today. There's no 14 offensive use here. There's no -- there's no chance 15 that these future expert testifiers will have more 16 information from either side than they do today. 17 MR. BECKCOM: Your Honor, in fairness, just 18 a couple of issues. Mr. Hampton responded to admissions 19 that we went yesterday about his Facebook use and didn't 20 admit any of the Facebook use at all. So the idea 21 that -- or even that he was on the phone or anything at 22 all like that. So the idea that he's produced a bunch 23 of information about his phone is completely inaccurate. 24 We know for a fact, at least according to 25 an independent witness from Verizon, that Union Pacific

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 11

1 and Mr. Hampton specifically requested that Verizon 2 erase his phone before they had successfully captured 3 the data. So the analogy that Mr. Guerra is using about 4 the normal consulting expert issue is a little bit 5 different here because there are -- there are very 6 serious issues that reflect evidence destruct -- that 7 relate to evidence destruction. 8 MR. GUERRA: And, Your Honor, we 9 completely -- 10 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Here's the Verizon 11 transcript from last week. 12 MR. GUERRA: We suspect -- we think the 13 credibility of that witness is very suspect. But 14 notwithstanding, that testimony has nothing to do with 15 the waiver -- the alleged waiver of the privilege with 16 respect to Mr. Koenig. 17 MR. AURBACH: And we're getting too far in 18 the weeds here. Your Honor, I believe that this 19 transcript you're seeing here is months and months after 20 Mr. Koenig had already testified there was no relevant 21 data on the phone. As of June 23, 2014, there's no 22 relevant data on that phone. Anything that happens 23 after that couldn't -- 24 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Well, what they're 25 telling you is he had already wiped it before that. So

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 12

1 all this shows is he's trying to wipe it again. 2 MR. AURBACH: There's no reason to tell him 3 what I'm telling him. 4 MR. BECKCOM: Well, the -- from a purely 5 factual standpoint, I think everybody will agree with 6 this: There was a download attempt by Mr. Koenig. That 7 acquired 1.15 gigabytes of data. That was on May 15th. 8 Everybody is on the same page with that. 9 Then there was another -- and that was -- 10 that download because of the way it was done, a lot of 11 that information I understand is not accessible. Then 12 about a month later on June 23rd, there was another 13 download and there was significantly less data a month 14 later on the phone -- and Mr. Koenig just testified to 15 that -- significantly less than 1.15 gigabytes of data. 16 So data -- there's no question data was removed. There 17 is no data that pre -- on the second download that 18 predates June 23, 2014. All we are trying to do is get 19 to the bottom of why that is the case, and like 20 Mr. Vujasinovic is saying, they've used this affidavit 21 to defend Mr. Hampton and Union Pacific's conduct and 22 then -- but then they're turning around and they're not 23 letting us ask questions to get to the bottom of this 24 issue. 25 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Let me speak to that,

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 13

1 because, Judge, we deposed Mr. Hampton in November, and 2 then shortly after that they assigned separate counsel 3 for him. He was previously represented by the same firm 4 that still represents Union Pacific now. 5 Union Pacific has charted a course now and 6 a strategy to say "Here's all we did to tell Hampton and 7 Wilson to hold onto your phones, don't delete them," 8 issued a litigation hold order. They're throwing out 9 more affidavits from other people, and their -- their 10 strategy now is to say "We told them not to get rid of 11 the phones. We specifically told them not to do that. 12 We hired this expert. Look at all this stuff this 13 expert -- our expert did, and if the phone was 14 deleted" -- which, by the way, we know it was -- "by 15 Mr. Hampton, that's -- that's his fault, and the 16 spoliation charge shouldn't be on -- be on us." 17 Now, the problem is that this gentleman 18 here, Mr. Koenig, in June last year basically determined 19 that there's no -- data had been removed from the phone. 20 Now, obviously he would have told Union Pacific and 21 their lawyers that, and then at that point in time they 22 would have -- they would be on notice to try to preserve 23 whatever might still be there. And then four months 24 after that they go to the Verizon store, not Mr. Hampton 25 alone but personally accompanied by a Union Pacific

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 14

1 witness who we know is a claims agent, and they 2 specifically tell the lady, she said, three to four 3 times "Make sure it's all wiped. Wipe the phone." And 4 so they want to be able to assert that defense, that we, 5 Union Pacific, are not liable for spoliation, throw out 6 that detailed affidavit, use it offensively, 7 affirmatively disclose it, and then when we try to get 8 behind the scenes as to "Well, what did UP and their 9 counsel know or not know," you know, prevent us from 10 asking it, from asking about that. So it's -- again, 11 it's like putting a witness on the stand, pass the 12 witness. No, you don't get to ask him any -- any real 13 questions. 14 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, they -- 15 MR. VUJASINOVIC: And they've -- and 16 they've -- they are not addressing waiver. This Axelson 17 case that I've cited, which is the main case on dual 18 capacity, does not concern the issue of waiver, and it 19 also doesn't concern the issue of the work having been 20 reviewed by a testifying expert. 21 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I would make a 22 couple of points. One, we haven't seen their -- their 23 brief on this issue, which they claim they have, but we 24 haven't seen it. We haven't seen the case law. With 25 respect to the affidavit, they have asked hours of

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 15

1 questions about the very specifics of what was going on. 2 The only thing we're objecting to are his mental 3 impressions, opinions, communications with counsel, that 4 sort of thing. Because the data is what the data is, 5 right, and what he did is what he did. But they don't 6 get to go behind it, and under Axelson he's a dual 7 capacity witness. I mean, it's just -- it's clear. And 8 if -- if the tables were turned and we were trying to 9 protect this information, the information that's 10 contained on the affidavit, clearly under Axelson we 11 would have no choice but to give it up because he's a 12 dual capacity and that's evidence that he learned 13 firsthand. But that doesn't mean that his status as 14 a -- as a consulting-only expert gets thrown out the 15 window. So there has been no waiver. 16 And with respect to all this other stuff, 17 let me just say very clearly, the testimony of the 18 witness who claims that UP told Verizon to delete his 19 phone is just -- it's not credible. I'll just be very 20 clear right now. That is just not something that Union 21 Pacific would have done. 22 MR. BECKCOM: Well -- 23 MR. GUERRA: And with that -- with that 24 said, Your Honor, we have permitted the plaintiffs -- 25 or, you know, pursuant to court order we have permitted

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 16

1 the plaintiffs to take -- to ask questions about each 2 and every time -- each of the five times that he went 3 out there to gather this information. But beyond that, 4 we get into the realm of his impressions, opinions, 5 communications with counsel, all those types of things 6 that are absolutely protected by consulting privileges. 7 MR. BECKCOM: Your Honor, just very 8 briefly. There's -- factually, here's what I think 9 everybody agrees with: That there are records from 10 Verizon that show that Mr. Hampton went to the Verizon 11 store and October 14th of last year and had his phone 12 reset. Those are records that we get from Verizon. 13 Those are written records. 14 MR. AURBACH: I object. That's not 15 accurate. The Verizon records -- 16 MR. BECKCOM: There are records -- 17 MR. AURBACH: -- don't say that. 18 MR. BECKCOM: Okay. There are records that 19 show that Mr. Hampton went to Verizon on October 14th. 20 MR. AURBACH: True. 21 MR. BECKCOM: There is a chain of custody 22 document that is a Union Pacific document that shows 23 this Samantha Rickard, a claims agent, went to that same 24 Verizon store on that same date and met with 25 Mr. Hampton. I mean, we all agree on that, don't we?

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 17

1 MR. GUERRA: I agree with that, but I 2 disagree vigorously with the statement that she told 3 them to delete the phone. But the point is that 4 that's -- 5 MR. BECKCOM: My only point is the phone -- 6 and we know and I think everybody knows that on 7 October 14th the phone was reset. Everybody agrees. 8 Even Mr. Hampton agreed on that. 9 MR. GUERRA: But the point here, 10 Your Honor, is that all of that is beyond what we're 11 talking about here, which is the attempted data 12 acquisition on five different occasions by this forensic 13 expert. 14 MR. VUJASINOVIC: It doesn't relate just to 15 data acquisition. It relates to what he told to Union 16 Pacific and counsel when he was doing all that, had 17 those problems, which is relevant to why they didn't do 18 anything else to stop the destruction of this evidence, 19 and that's exactly why they're throwing that affidavit 20 out. Look here, look at all this stuff we did. You 21 know, go after Hampton. It's his deal. That's -- 22 that's the bottom line on that. 23 JUDGE CARTER: Okay. It's a really 24 interesting issue that it presents for the Court, 25 especially as it relates to a cell phone and the

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 18

1 downloading of information contained on a cell phone. 2 But based on evidence that's before me, the affidavit 3 that I'm looking at right now, along with the arguments 4 of counsel, the objections are overruled at this time. 5 Is there anything else that you need from 6 me? 7 MR. BECKCOM: One minute, Your Honor, and I 8 think Mr. Guerra and I can present this. Mr. Wilson -- 9 we originally got a redacted copy of his data, and then 10 Mr. Guerra and I agreed that they would give us a 11 redacted -- an unredacted copy because Mr. Wilson is 12 dead. 13 JUDGE CARTER: Okay. 14 MR. BECKCOM: And they gave me -- 15 JUDGE CARTER: That's a shame. 16 MR. BECKCOM: Yeah. They -- yeah. They 17 gave me an unredacted copy, and I found out this morning 18 that accidentally -- and I'm not saying they did this on 19 purpose or anything at all like this, but there was some 20 other data that was not provided. And our agreement was 21 an unredacted copy. I understand from Mr. Guerra that 22 there may be some kind of embarrassing photos -- 23 MR. GUERRA: It's -- 24 MR. BECKCOM: -- or something, but the guy 25 is dead. And so I just -- I mean, if it's embarrassing

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 19

1 photos, I'm not even going to use it anyway. I just 2 want our agreement to be honored. That's all. 3 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, and I want to show 4 this to the Court. It's here for you, if you would like 5 to look at it. I just think it's -- we don't have an 6 objection to the production. We just think it's highly 7 embarrassing -- 8 JUDGE CARTER: Ooh. 9 MR. GUERRA: -- and it's just not relevant 10 in any way to what's going on in this case. So if the 11 Court would like for me to provide a copy to other 12 counsel, I'm happy to do so. I just don't see that it's 13 relevant. 14 MR. BECKCOM: We had an agreement that you 15 would produce an unredacted -- 16 MR. GUERRA: Brian, morally I feel 17 inappropriate giving that to you without being ordered 18 to do so. I mean, I understand we have -- 19 MR. BECKCOM: We did have an agreement. 20 MR. GUERRA: We did. Absolutely. 21 JUDGE CARTER: All right. All right. All 22 right. We don't want to fight about it. I'm reading. 23 MR. VUJASINOVIC: He was follow -- he was a 24 co-worker of Mr. Hampton. He was following him at the 25 time of the crash and an alleged witness who died before

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 20

1 we could depose him. 2 MR. GUERRA: And, Your Honor, there was an 3 agreement initially to provide 12 hours. We provided 4 that, and then I don't think there's anything else that 5 happens in those records that are relevant. 6 MR. BECKCOM: And, Your Honor, just so you 7 know, in addition to him being deceased, his wife got 8 remarried very soon after he died and has raised no 9 objections at all to the production of any of his -- I 10 think as his wife when he died, she would be the one 11 that would have to raise objections on his behalf. 12 MR. VUJASINOVIC: It's already in the hands 13 of a third party. 14 MR. GUERRA: Obviously, this is an 15 in-camera review. 16 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Oh, I understand. I'm 17 not referring to Judge Carter. I meant Union Pacific, 18 his former employer, has it. So apparently it wasn't 19 private enough for him not to give it to his employer, 20 and he's not a party to the case. 21 MR. BECKCOM: And he's dead. 22 MR. GUERRA: Are you that interested in 23 what his search history is? 24 MR. BECKCOM: I don't know what -- 25 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Well, we have no idea

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 21

1 what it is. 2 MR. BECKCOM: And if it's that bad, I 3 wouldn't use it anyway, of course. 4 JUDGE CARTER: Well, it will be the subject 5 of some discussion, I think, later, but I'm going to 6 order that it be produced. 7 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Here you go. 8 MR. BECKCOM: Thank you. 9 JUDGE CARTER: There needs to be some 10 relevant issue, obviously, for us to bring that into 11 evidence. Otherwise, I anticipate that we'll see 12 something about that at pretrial. 13 MR. GUERRA: Right. 14 Your Honor, so just to be clear so I can 15 understand the scope of the overruling, I mean, so is 16 his status as a consulting expert completely destroyed, 17 or does he maintain any of that status for purposes of 18 going forward? 19 JUDGE CARTER: I don't know how I can 20 piecemeal it, you know, and do it without take -- 21 removing the complete status as a consulting expert. 22 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 23 JUDGE CARTER: Because otherwise we're 24 going to sit here and you're going to object and 25 instruct the witness not to answer anything that you

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 22

1 think would come within the scope of some privilege, and 2 I guess as a result of what I've seen here, I'm ruling 3 that that privilege is no longer applicable. 4 MR. VUJASINOVIC: What I -- you know, what 5 I would add here, Judge, is that -- I mean, that 6 affidavit is basically all the work he's done, and so 7 that's what we tried to question him on today. So it's 8 not like he's done other stuff, to our knowledge, 9 outside the scope of the affidavit. 10 MR. BECKCOM: Do you have the stuff you 11 withheld pursuant to the privilege with you? 12 MR. GUERRA: I do. 13 MR. BECKCOM: Can we -- 14 MR. GUERRA: No, you may not. We'll 15 probably end up discussing this with the Court of 16 Appeals. 17 MR. BECKCOM: We're right in the middle of 18 his deposition. I thought we were here so Judge Carter 19 could immediately rule and we could proceed with the 20 deposition with the Judge here. I thought that was the 21 whole point of this. 22 MR. GUERRA: And the Judge has ruled, and I 23 understand the ruling now. And, Brian, we all have 24 legal rights, and I'm protecting my client's legal 25 rights.

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 23

1 JUDGE CARTER: All right. So at this point 2 are we shutting down the deposition, or can we get any 3 more good work out of this day? 4 MR. GUERRA: I think -- 5 MR. VUJASINOVIC: We can't do anymore. 6 MR. GUERRA: Yeah. And we're not -- 7 MR. VUJASINOVIC: We got what we could, 8 Judge, before your ruling, and I don't think -- 9 MR. BECKCOM: And what we did, Your Honor, 10 just so you know, Mr. Guerra and I -- who I said at the 11 last hearing work well together, and I still think 12 that's the case -- we got as much testimony as we 13 possibly could without getting into the privileges. And 14 then so all that's left right now is a very short bit of 15 questions that apply to the privileges. 16 JUDGE CARTER: Okay. 17 MR. BECKCOM: Everything else -- 18 MR. GUERRA: And I agree with that, 19 Your Honor. 20 JUDGE CARTER: That's fine with me. Okay. 21 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 22 JUDGE CARTER: Then we'll finish -- I guess 23 you-all will finish up here in pretty short order, and 24 you can have this affidavit back. 25 Is there anything else that you-all need

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 24

1 from me at this time? 2 MR. VUJASINOVIC: I think we're done now 3 with the witnesses; right? 4 MR. GUERRA: Yeah, I think we're done with 5 the witnesses, and so the deposition is adjourned and at 6 some point we'll either -- 7 MR. BECKCOM: We're not finished with the 8 witness. We're recessing. 9 MR. GUERRA: Adjourned; right? Is that -- 10 is that the right word? 11 MR. VUJASINOVIC: Whatever it is, we want 12 to finish him. 13 JUDGE CARTER: We recess -- we'll recess 14 this dep -- we're going to recess this deposition at 15 this time, and we'll pick back up with it at a later 16 date as agreed by Counsel or otherwise ordered by this 17 Court. 18 Just so we are clear going forward, I want 19 the parties to be able to use their deposition time in 20 the most efficient manner, and today we've been 21 brought -- it's been brought up that the parties would 22 like to seek an appeal of this Honorable Court's 23 decision. I'm happy with that. I just want you-all to 24 make use -- the best use of the time. I'm sure that 25 you-all are going to do that as we go forward in this

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 25

1 case. 2 And subject to recalling any of these 3 witnesses, we're going to recess today. So any -- there 4 being nothing else? 5 MR. GUERRA: I think that's it, Your Honor. 6 JUDGE CARTER: All right. 7 MR. BECKCOM: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 JUDGE CARTER: Thank you very much, 9 everybody. 10 MR. AURBACH: Thank you for your time, Your 11 Honor.

12

13 (The motion hearing was concluded at 2:27 p.m.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10

Motions Held Before The Honorable Kyle Carter

Page 26

1 COUNTY OF HARRIS ) 2 STATE OF TEXAS )

PR

3

IN e o w ing

4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE TE ri as

5

Th fil

D

6 I, DEBBIE BOOTHE, a Certified Shorthand D al ec lLe

7 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify

U

g

8 that this transcript is a true record of the proceedings PL cer tron ga

e

i n e l ea

9 taken before The Honorable Kyle Carter.

IC tifie ica l te

10 I further certify that I am neither attorney, AT d us

11 nor counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the E E-T si no

12 parties to the action in which these motions were made.

R

13 Further, I am not a relative or employee of any attorney 14 of record in this cause, nor do I have a financial ra g n e l o g

15 interest in the action.

lly ch

ns d y.

16 Subscribed and sworn to on this the 24th cr

17 day of June, 2015.

ip

18

t

19 _____________________________________________ DEBBIE BOOTHE, CSR

20 Texas CSR 4708 Expiration Date: 12-31-16 21 DepoTexas, Inc.

Firm Registration No. 95

22 13101 Northwest Freeway, Suite 210 Houston, Texas 77040 23 888.893.3767

24

25

DepoTexas, Inc.

Electronically signed by Debbie Boothe (301-017-427-7392) 5af73957-9bc9-4781-870d-25e80535ae10