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

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, 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.

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 [email protected] [email protected] VERETTA FRAZIER ERIC POLICASTRO State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No. 24068809 [email protected] [email protected] NIGEL REDMOND TREY CRAWFORD State Bar No. 24058852 State Bar No. 24059623 [email protected] [email protected] 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

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: [email protected] MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: [email protected]

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 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. Id. ¶ 84.

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.

Rule 11 Agreement Re: Expert Designations, Exhibit 3.

Plaintiff’s TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2(f) Expert Witness Designations, Exhibit 4.

Id. at pp. 11-12.

See Correspondence from Trey Crawford (July 3, 2014), Exhibit 5.

Order Resetting Trial Date, Exhibit 6.

Notice of Trial Announcement, Exhibit 7.

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

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)).

Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex. 1988). 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

Id. 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).

See Exhibit 4 at 11-12. 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.

Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 751-52 (Tex. 1988) (a movant’s showing of good cause is mandatory). 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.”).

TEX. R. CIV. P. 204.1(a).

Id. at 506-07.

In re Click, 442 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.). In re Transwestern Pub. Co., L.L.C., 96 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding). 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

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).

See Correspondence between David Denton and Trey Crawford, Exhibit 8.

96 S.W.3d at 506. 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.

See In re Click, 442 S.W.3d at 491.

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).

See In re Click, 442 S.W.3d at 491.

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,

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 [email protected] ERIC POLICASTRO State Bar No. 24068809 [email protected] TREY H. CRAWFORD State Bar No. 24059623 [email protected] 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 [email protected] (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 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] VIA E-MAIL Samuel H. Johnson Johnson Broome, P.C. [email protected]

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. [email protected] om [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] VERETTA FRAZIER ERIC POLICAST

POLICASTRO RO State Bar No. 00793264 State Bar No.

No. 24068809 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] NIGEL REDMOND TREY CRAWFOR

CRAWFORD D State Bar No.

No. 24058852 No. 24059623

State Bar No. 24059623 nigel.r@west llp.com [email protected] [email protected] 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

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

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 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 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 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 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

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 .multi- multi- 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 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 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

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

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: [email protected] 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

San SanAntonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas78230

78230 Phone:

Phone:(210)

(210)501-0995

501-0995 email: email:jgomd@physicia nLCP.com [email protected]

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

West Suite Suite 375

San San Antonio,

Antonio,Texas

Texas 78230

78230 Phone:

Phone: (210)

(210) 501-0995

501-0995 email: email: [email protected] [email protected] 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 [email protected]

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.

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.

"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:

• 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) [email protected]

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 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: [email protected] 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:[email protected]] 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 [email protected] 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 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 [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 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.

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: [email protected] DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: [email protected] MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: [email protected]

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.

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)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: [email protected] DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: [email protected] MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: [email protected]

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 [email protected] SARAH L. ROGERS Texas Bar No. 24046239 Email: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:19 AM To: Matthew E. Last; Ramona Martinez; [email protected]; Samuel H. Johnson

([email protected]); [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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; )

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 [email protected] 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 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 - 2 Handwritten Notes 11 11

5 Q. - today? 6 6 A. It is.

4 Handwritten Notes S2 S2 8 do you not? 5 The Forensic History Questionnaire 120 120 9 A. Yes, sir.

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

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.

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? 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.

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?

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 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;

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, 14 17 Mr. Randy A. Nelson, Attorney for Post IS 18 Properties;

22 taken, and furfcher that I am not financially or otherwise 22 23 interested in the outcome of the action. 23 24 Further certification requirements pursuant to

25 Rule 203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have 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 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.

18 DECEMBER 19, 2014 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 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 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 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 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;[email protected]^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: [email protected] 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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

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

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) 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 [email protected]

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: [email protected] DAVID S. DENTON Texas Bar No. 24036471 email: [email protected] MATTHEW E. LAST Texas Bar No. 24054910 email: [email protected]

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: [email protected] SARAH L ROGERS Texas Bar No. 24046239 Email: [email protected]

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