The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the personslisted below.

Filers muststill provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Status as of 11/15/2023 7:56 AM CST Associated Case Party: ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the personslisted below.

Filers muststill provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Inside counsel for each party and the employees of such attorneys to whom it is necessary that Confidential Information be shown for purposes of this proCeeding; Persons employed by any party or any party's attorneys solely for the purpose of assisting in the preparation of this action for trial, including but not limited to experts, their staff, and support personnel to whom it is necessary that Information be shown for purposes of assisting in such Confidential preparation; 1 The Court or persons employed by the Court and the jury; Duly qualified court proceedings; reporters and videographers participating in these Any witness who authorized or generated a designated document or received a designated document; Witnesses in preparation for or in the course of depositions or the trial of this matter; and

The party contesting the time thereafter seek an order to alter the designation has the affirmative duty to file the appropriate motion and request a hearing.

Until any dispute under this paragraph is ruled upon by the presiding judge, the designation will remain in full force and effect, and the information will continue to be accorded the confidential treatment required by this Protective Order.

The Court retains jurisdiction indefinitely over the Parties and any persons provided access to “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information under the terms of this Protective Order with respect to any dispute l 1

agree to notify any stenographic, clerical, or technical personnel who are required to assist me of the terms of the Protective Order and of its binding effect on them and me.

1 Counsel for Geogreen indicated they would be handling Geogreen’s employees’ discovery responses, but none of these employees has responded to the subpoenas or the deposition on written questions, served on Geogreen on ...

This case is a very intractable LLC membership dispute between Plaintiff Nizar Ali and Defendant Salim Charolia, two equal owners of a gas station/convenience store in Kemah.

By contrast, Defendant appears intent on delaying depositions from being taken, preventing Plaintiff from completing oral and written discovery altogether, and of course, postponing the June trial date.

Case in point are Defendant’s objections and motions to quash the depositions of Defendant, Ted Cox, and Mohammed Vaselahmed.

To that end, a Rule 11 agreement was struck as follows: The next day, Plaintiff emailed Defendant that he wished to depose Salim Charolia, Budget

All Plaintiff ever wanted from Defendant was a list of dates he was available to conduct the party and nonparty depositions before trial as they had agreed in the Rule 11.

Plaintiff Nizar Ali moves to compel Fuel Distributors Inc. to comply with a lawfully issued document subpoena, and in support, states as follows: Introduction This case is an LLC membership dispute between Plaintiff Nizar Ali and Defendant Salim Charolia, two equal owners of a gas station/convenience store in Kemah.

For example, he failed to disclose the $18,000+ in kickbacks he secretly earned through his ownership stake in the general contractor that was hired to build the store.

When Plaintiff emailed Defendant for a more detailed explanation, his counsel said she was “out of the office” and couldn’t respond until Monday March 17, the deadline in the DCO to file discovery motions like this one.

Defendant maintains that Plaintiff was required to serve his subpoena “no later than 30 days before the end of the applicable discovery period.” (Def.’s Objections at 1 (citing Tex.

Defendant cites no case in support of the notion that the subpoena is void unless it contains an unconditional offer to reimburse the responding party’s compliance expenses.

When a party abuses the discovery process by, for instance, responding evasively to interrogatories or wholesale refusing to produce documents they are known to possess, the proper remedy is an order under Rule 37 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure compelling that party to fully and completely respond to those interrogatories and to produce all responsive documents that can be obtained after a reasonably diligent search.

Plaintiff gave Defendant the benefit of the doubt on this objection by sending him a copy of the specific audio recording (Korn Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3 - Bates labeled ALI_002384) to which the Interrogatory refers.

Plaintiff in this interrogatory is simply requesting Defendant to state the total amount of money Skipper’s Port paid Budget Builders for the construction of the Seaport Store.

But “[t]he records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained must be specified in sufficient detail to permit the requesting party to locate and identify them as readily as can the responding party.” Tex.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents and Communications exchanged with agents of Budget Builders, LLC in connection with the bidding process or construction of the Seaport Store.

Ex. F; see Ex. G. None of the parties asserted a legitimate justification for refusing to present the parties, their experts, and their employees for a deposition between March 10, 2025 and April 11, 2025, as agreed.

A true and correct copy of Charolia’s First Set of Interrogatories to Ali is attached hereto as Exhibit H, at p.5. Ali provided none of this information for the five to ten communications which are the subject of Ali’s response to this ...

Counsel for Plaintiff anticipates that mediation may ultimately prove productive but is not confident it will be resolved in a single day given the complexities involved in this dispute over control of the business jointly owned by Plaintiff Nizar Ali, Defendant Salim Charolia and Third-Party Defendant Hasan Maredia.

It is not realistic for Defendant to expect that this large a volume of requests can be properly responded to within 30 days, particularly given the multiple trial settings,

appellate deadlines, hearings, etc. that will demand attention by the undersigned counsel over the next month, including two aged case district court jury trial settings and motions for summary judgment.

Charolia also has taken issue with previous discovery responses provided in August 2024 and, after demonstrating no diligence nor extending any offer to confer when time was less limited, is now threatening to file a motion to compel if Charolia’s exacting demands are not met.

Conclusion Plaintiff would respectfully request the Court reset the current trial setting, motions filing deadline and pretrial conference by 60 days and order that the deadline to respond to all written discovery requests which are outstanding or which may be delivered before the conclusion of mediation, be extended to 90 days from their service date, and for all such further relief to which Plaintiff is entitled at law or in equity.