NO. .

IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2,

RELATORS




APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS



Relators J ohn Does 1 and 2 submit these documents in support of their petition for
writ of mandamus.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Order complained of, dated J anuary 29, 2010. Tab A

2. Opinion of the court of appeals, dated April 29, 2010. Tab B

3. Kleins Original Petition.. Tab C

4. Kleins First Amended Original Petition. Tab D

5. Rule 11 Agreement Between Klein and Google, Inc... Tab E

6. Kleins Subpoena Duces Tecum.. Tab F

7. Defendant www.operationkleinwatch.blogspot.coms Motion to
Quash Subpoena DucesTecum.

Tab G

8. Defendant www.samtheeagleusa.blogspot.coms Motion to Quash
Subpoena Duces Tecum

Tab H

9. Kleins Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.. Tab I

10
.
Reporters Record from the J anuary 15, 2010, hearing on the motion
to quash ...

Tab J

11
.
E-file Inventory Sheet of all Documents Filed in the Trial Court... Tab K
12
.
Verification of J effrey L. Dorrell Tab L
13 Rules Relied Upon .. Tab M

In re John Does 1 and 2
1








EXHIBIT A
Jefferson County District Court
***EIFIlED***
LexisNexis Transaction ID: 29299597
Date: Jan 29 2010 2:54PM
Lolita Ramos, District Clerk
No. 184,784
PRK ENTERPRISES, INC. AND KLEIN
INVESTMENTS, INC.
VS.
GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGER.COM,
WWW.OPEHATIONKLEINWATCH.BLOGSPOT.
COM AND WWW.SAMTHEEAGLEUSA.
BLOGSPOT.COM









IN 'I'I-IE DISTRICT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
172ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AMENDED ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO QUASI-I SUBPOENA
CAlvffi ON TO BE CONSIDERED Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoena, and
Petitioner's response thereto, as well as the arguments of counsel, and the Court finds that said
motions are unmeritorious; therefore
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, Sam the Eagle Webblog's Motion to Quash Subpoena
is hereby DENIED. It is further,
ORDERED that Respondents, Operation Kleinwatch,
http:// samtheeagleusa.blogspot.com/, http://operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com/, and
http://notthisonetoojacques.blogspot.com/s'MotiontoQuashSubpoenaisherebyDENIED. It is
further,
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. It is further,
ORDERED that the objections to the subpoena of Sam the Eagle Webb log, Operation
I<Jeinwatch, http://samtheeagleusa.blogspot.com/,http://operationklein\'vatch.blogspot.com/, and
http://notthisonetoojacques.blogspot.com/ are hereby stricken.
SIGNED this 29
th
day of January, 2010.
JUDGE PRESIDING
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON



I, Lolita Ramos, Clerk of the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas do hereby certify
that the documents contained ill this record to which this Certification is attached are all of the
I
Documents specified by Texas jRules of Appellate Procedure 34.5(A) and all other documents
timely requested by a party to *is proceeding under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(A)
I
i
and all other Documents i l l e l ~ requested by a party to this proceeding under Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34.5(B).
Given under my Hand and Sea\ at my office in Jefferson County, Texas this 31 st day of
!
March 2010.
Signature of Clerk rnUQJ\f
Name of Clerk Maritza Vargas '
Title ____ ...;D=ept<.:l=lty'-'----_________ _








EXHIBIT B
Page 1
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3190, *
IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2

NO. 09-10-00189-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT

2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3190


April 29, 2010, Opinion Delivered

DISPOSITION: PETITION DENIED.

COUNSEL: For relator: J effrey L. Dorrell, Escamilla,
Poneck & Cruz, LLP, Houston.

For real parties in interest: J ohn S. Morgan, Harris,
Duesler & Hatfield, LLP, Beaumont; Dennis M. Lynch,
Figari & Davenport, LLP, Dallas.

JUDGES: Before McKeithen, C.J ., Gaultney and Hor-
ton, J J .

OPINION

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators J ohn Does 1 and 2 filed a petition for writ
of mandamus, in which they contend the trial court
abused its discretion by denying their motion to quash
the subpoena duces tecum that PRK Enterprises, Inc. and
Klein Investments, Inc. served on Google, Inc.
Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of
discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when
that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. In re Pruden-
tial Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Af-
ter reviewing the mandamus record and petition, we con-
clude that the relators have not demonstrated a clear
abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we
deny relators' motion for emergency stay, and we deny
the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered April 29, 2010








EXHIBIT C
.,'
, .
P'RK ENTERPRISES, INC. ANn! KLEIN
INVESTMENTS, INC. i
1
No.



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
VS. I
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGEJR.CO,
WWW.OPERATIONKLEINWAnrr.BlLOGSPOT.
COM AND VVWW.SAMTHEEAGUEUSA.
DISTRICT
BLOGSPOT.COM
PETITJONER1S ORIiGINAL PETITION UNDER RULE 202
I
I
To THE HONORABLE JUDGE OFisAID COURT:
NOW, PRK INC. AND KLEIN INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiffs in
the above-entitled and numberJd cause and files Petitioners' Original Petition, complaining
I .
of GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGER.;COM, WWW.OPERATIONKLEINWATCH.BLOGSPOT.COM. AND
i
WWW.SAMTHEEAGLEUSA.BLOGSPOT.COM. Defendants, and for a cause of action would show
I,
the following: .
1.
PARTIES
!
Plaintiffs, PRK Enterprises, Inc. and Klein Investments, Inc., are corporations doing
I
i
business in Jefferson County, ITexas and are appearing in court through their attorney of
I
!
record.
i
2. Defendant, Google, Ihc., is a website and can be served through Google Legal
I
I
I
i
Support, located at 1600 Ampa Theater Parkway, Mountain View, Califomia 94843.
I ,"
3. Defendant, Blogger.corp, is a website. No service is request.ta at
I ' }'.\ '1" "1'1';;,,'
I
, 0
26 :D
f>,- L " = VI'''-
I
i .i"''tr.=i r.* GJ 02::::
N :iE. 'f""
.!
-1:0 0'\

ico -:0
I
I '(I: ." W
I t
4. Defendant, www.operaLonkleinwatch.blogSpot.com. is a website.
I .
I
No service is
requested at this time.
5. Defendant, www.samthJeagleusa.blogspot.comis a website. No service is requested
i .
at this time.
I
!JUIUSDICTION AND VENUE
I
I
6. The issues in controversy are within the jurisdictional purview of this Court. Venue
I
is proper in this Court, any potential suit will be filed in this venue.
! .
FACTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION
7. Pursuant to Rule 202.2, Petitioners anticipate the institution of the suit in which
I
the Petitioners may be parties against Respondents identified above, and/or potentially other
Respondents. The Petitioners leek to investigate potential claims against theRespondents
!
identified above. The subjectlmatter of the anticipated lawsuit are claims for breach of
copyright law, defamation per ie, libel per se, and invasion of privacy. Petitioners may be
t
making a claim under the DigitJI Millennium Copyright Act ofl998, 17 U.S.C. Section 512,
.1
because the Respondents idntified below are currently using, without permission,
I .
copyrighted! material and intellectual property, for the purposes of accomp lishing
[
the state law torts identified abbve.
I
8. Specifically, the websi}es being hosted by the Defendant Google, Inc., and/or
Blogger.com, identified above,! have been engaged in a pattem of libel and defamation per
I
se, invasion of privacy, and use rfCOPYrighted images (both facial and voice image), without
I
I
I
2
I
I
permission. The purpose websites are to disparage, harass and cause injury to these
,
I
Petitioners, as well as to Mr. Klein personally. These websites host significant, Dllse
information, and invade the of petitioJers throughout the website. For example,
!
without limitation, the website bperation Klein Watch, contains false information on legal'
I
proceedings that do not involte either Klbin individually or the Petitioners, falsely
represent that judgments been taken abainst the Petitioners andlor Mr. Klein
individually, falsely identify aibankruPley pro1eeding, also identifY lawsuits that do not
i I
involve Petitioners and/or Mr. individuaifY. Additionally, this website jdentifies all
!
members of Mr. Klein's for no apparent purpose other than to invade their privacy.
I
A review ofthe websites make clear that they are not expressing any "opinions" protected
by the First Amendment but initead are solely for defamation.
, I
9. Petitioners have sent correspondence to doogle, Inc. to determine the identity of who
. ii,
i I
owns or hosts these websites, to no avail. ACGordingly, Petitioners seek under Rule 202
I I .
petition to take the deposition bf the designated corporate representatives of Go ogle, Inc.,
andlor its subsidiary BIOgger.etm, for the fOllO"'11 'ing purposes:
1. To identifY all parties, persons'l or entities responsible for the website
I I
w w w . 0 per J. t ion k lei n Iw a t c h . b log s pot. com
i I

I I
Identify all parties or who provide contributions of money or
r b I h b . I
lterary su stanc9 to t ese we Slty.
I '
i 3 I
I I
i I
I
and
2.
I
..... 1.
i
. 3. Identity all parties or entities who posted comments on these websites
!
and/or have financial support to these websites.
i
4. IdentifY all pers9ns, parties or entities who are in anyway affiliated with, or
connected with any capacity, these websites.
10. As part ofthis petition, Petitioners attach a copy ofthe opinion of the Supreme Court
I
of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. Go ogle, Inc. and/or its subsidiary
i
Blogger.coTn, in. which the Srpreme Court of the State of New York ruled that the
I
i
respondents must divulge the s;ame type of infonnation that Petitioners are seeking in this
Rule 202 petition. I
11. At this time, Petitionerr cannQt identifY the name of the person(s) who would be
Google, Inc., to provide the information requested therein. Petitioners believe that an
. I . () ld 'd . 'd 'hl' h .
appropnate corporate represeI}tatlve s wou proVl e testImony I enth}mg t e partles,
. I
persons or entities enquired abrut in the area of sought after testimony.
12. Petitioners request that tfIis Court enter an order authorizing Petitioners to take these
depositions of the corporate representatives identified herein.
I
I
PRAYER
I
WHEREFORE, PREMISES; CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, PRK Enterprises, Inc. and Klein
I
Investments, Inc., pray j that Defendants, GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGER.COM,
I
WWW.OPERATIONKLEINWATCH.BLOGSPOT.COM, AND WWW.SAMTHEEAGLEUSA.BLOGSPOT.COM
I
be cited to appear and answer herein as the law directs, and that upon hearing, Petitioners
I
I
4
[]
obtain the relief sought herein the depositions sought herein, and for such other and
further relief, both general special, statutory or common law, at law and in equity, to
which Petitioners may be
01\;:-d'

Texas Bar No. 14447475
HARRIS, DUESLER & HATFIELD
550 Fannin, Suite 650
Beaumont, Texas 77701
Telephone: (409) 832-8382
Facsimile: (409) 833-4240
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
5
G
THEiSTA!TEOliTBXA:S
," .. - "'M ,.'. . ...
,CQUNTYQF.JEFF:ER$O'N
I
.... , .. ...1 ' ... ' . . . . . '. ." .
:per,SOlla:U'llPpea,l:ed pmLTP R.

:PHILIP'.K:LElN
.' ".' 'J'"
I
'. . .... '" I, .. : ....... : ......... ....... .
. .. 2.Q.09
..
! I . .
I
!








EXHIBIT D
Jefferson County District Court
***EFIlED***
LexisNexis Transaction ID: 29784266
Date: Feb 26 2010 3:05PM
Lolita Ramos, District Clerk
PRK ENTERPIUSES, INC. AND KLEIN
INVESTMENTS, INC.
VS.
No. 184,784





GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGER.COM,
WWW.OPI8:RATIONKLEINWATCH.BLOGSPOT.
COM AND WWW.SAMTHEEAGLEUSA.
BLOGSPOT.COM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
172
NIJ
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PETITIONERS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION
To THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, PRK ENTERPRISES, INC. and KLEIN INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiffs in the above-entitled and numbered cause and files Petitioners' First Amended
Petition, complaining of Go ogle, Inc., Blogger.com, www.operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com
and wvvw.sametheeagleusa.blogspot.com, Defendants, and for a cause of action would who
lmto the Court the following:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs, PRI( Enterprises, Inc. and Klein Investments, Inc., are corporations doing
business in Jefferson County, Texas and are appearing in COUlt through their attomey of
record.
2. Defendant, Google, Inc., is a website and can be served tllTough Google Legal
Support, located at 1600 Ampa Theater Parkway, Mountain View, California 94843.
3. Defendant, Blogger.com, is a website. No service is requested at this time.
4. Defendant, vvww.operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com, is a website. No service is
~ ~ rOol
.J i
requested at this time.
5. Defendant, www.samtheeagleusa.blogs]Jot.c0111 is a website. No service is requested
at this time.
JUUJ[SDICTlON AND VENUE
6. The issues in contToversy are within the jurisdictional purview of this Court. Venue
is proper in this COUli, because any potential suit will be filed in this venue.
FACTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION
7. The Petitioners anticipate the institution of the suit in which the Petitioners may be
parties against Respondents identified above, and/or potentially other Respondents. The
Petitioners seek to investigate potential clainIs against the Respondents identified above. The
subject matter of the anticipated lawsuit are claims for breach of copYlight law, defamation
per se, libel per se, and invasion of privacy. Petitioners may be making a claim lUIder the
Digital Millennium CopYlight Act of1998, 17 U. S. C. S ection512, because the Respondents
identified below are cUlTentiy using, without permission, copyrighted material and
copyrighted intellectual property, for the purposes of accomplishing the state law tOlis
identified above.
8. Specifically, the websites being hosted by tile Defendant Google, Inc., and/or
Blogger.com, identified above, have been engaged in a pattem oflibel and defamation per
se, invasion of privacy, and use of copyrighted images (both facial and voice inIage), Witilout
permission. The purpose of these websites me to disparage, harass and cause injlUyto these
Petitioners, as well as to Mr. Philip Klein personally. These websites host significant, false
information, and invade the privacy of Petitioners throughout the website. For example,
without limitation, the website Operation Klein Watch, contains false information on legal
proceedings that do not involve either Mr. Klein individually or the Petitioners, falsely
represent that judgments have been taken against the Petitioners and/or Mr. Klein
individuaHy, falsely identify a bankruptcy proceeding, also identify lawsuits that do not
involve Petitioners and/or Mr. Klein individually. Additionally, this website identifies all
members ofMr. Klein's family, for no apparent pmpose other than to invade their privacy.
A review of the websites make it clear that they are not expressing any "opinions" protected
by the First Amendment but instead are solely vehicles for defamation.
9. Petitioners have sent conespondence to Google, Inc. to determine the identity of who
owns or hosts these websites, to no avail. Accordingly, Petitioners seek to take the
deposition of the designated corporate representatives of Google, Inc., and/or its subsidiary
Blogger.com, for the following purposes:
1. To identify all parties, persons, or entities responsible for the website
www.operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com and
www.sarntheeagleusa.blogspot.com.
2. Identify all persons, parties or entities who provide contributions of money or
literary substarrce to these websites.
3. Identify all persons, parties or entities who posted conunents on these websites
and/or have provided fmancial SUppOlt to these websites.
4. Identify a.ll persons, parties or entities who a.re in anyway affiliated with, or
connected with in any capacity, these websites.
10. As part of this petition, Petitioners attach a copy oHhe opinion of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Liskulula:, Petitioner, v. Google, Inc. and/or its subsidiw:y
Blogger.com, in which the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that the
respondents must divulge the same type of information that Petitioners are seeking in this
Rule 202 petition.
11. At this time, Petitioners cannot identify the name of the person(s) who would be
Google, Inc., to provide the infonnation requested therein. Petitioners believe that an
appropriate corporate representative( s) would provide testimony identifying the parties,
persons or entities enquired about in the area of sought after testimony.
12. Petitioners request that this Comi enter an order authorizing Petitioners to take these
depositions of the corporate representatives identified herein.
13. Plaintiff now sues Google, Inc., on the doctrine of the civil conspiracy, slander, and
libel, and Plaintiff would show that Google, Inc., is now an active co-conspirator with the
web sites and the bloggers at issue. In this regard, Google, Inc., has entered into a Rule 11
agreement for the production of records, but now it adamantly refuses to do so, because it is
a civil conspjmtor with the other Defendants. Plallltiff, therefore, seeks to recover from
Google, Inc., all actual damages caused by the tmis perpetrated by the Defendant, Google,
Inc., for which the Plaintiffllow sues.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, PRK Enterprises, Inc. and Klelll
Investments, Inc., pray that Defendants, GOOGLE, INC., BLOGGER.COM,
w w W . 0 PER A T ION K LEI N W A T C I-I . B LOG S POT. COM, AND
60
WWW.SAMTHEEAGLEUSA.BLOGSPOT.COM be cited to appear and answer herein as the law
directs, and that upon heaTing, Petitioners obtain the relief sought herein through the
depositions sought herein, and for such other and further relief, both general and special,
statutory or common law, at law and in equity, to which Petitioners may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John S. Morgan
JOHN S. MORGAN
Texas Bar No. 14447475
HARRIS, DUESLER & HATFIELD
550 Fannin, Suite 650
Beaumont, Texas 77701
Telephone: (409) 832-8382
Facsimile: (409) 833-4240
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby eertify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the following counsel ofrecorcl via facsimile, on this 26
th
clay of February, 2010.
Demus Lynch
Figari & Davenport
901 Main StTeet, Suite 3400
Dallas, Texas 75202
Sam the Eagle Webblog
Google Blogspot
Operation Kleinwatch Blog
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
l!ifIfacsimile (214) 939-2090
Via ClIllRRR
/s/ John S. Morgan
JOHN S. MORGAN








EXHIBIT E
FIGARI & I)AVENPC)RI'
\ HH ']'}ILFJ-I j 1.1,\,111 J \) i i'\'IlJJ !! Y P,\J{! !'.) H')JII!'
J,,<, J i 'J lJ",;(, i ;\11 t I'D I L\iHl:! J T !'\kl 1lJ""'>
,j()O Hank "I' Plaia
'1()1 Mail! StIce!
1),"I"s. Texas 7520237<)(,
214<13<)2000
("IX
January 6, 20 I 0
via E-MAIL (jsll1organ@ndhlawycrs.com)
Mr. John S. Morgan
Harris, Duesler & Hatfield
550 Fannin, Suite 650
Beaumont, Texas 77701
\\-111(.;-"\ 1:-:'\1;111 ""Ii!!,n;"
JCtnl IS., .COI Ii
Re: PRK Enterprises Illc. and Klein III vestments, IIlC'. ('Plaintiffs ") v. Google
Inc., et at.; No. E-O 184784; In the 172nd Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas
Dear John:
Pursuant to Rule II of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this letter will
memorialize our agreement regarding the scope of the hearing currently scheduled by
Plaintiffs for January 15,2010 in the above-refcrenced matter (the "Hearing").
The Hearing will address the issues raised in the bloggers' motion to quash
Plaintiffs' subpoena (the "Subpoena") issued to Google Inc. ("Google"). It is my
understanding and our agreement that the Hearing will only address the issues raiscd in
the motion to quash. More specifically, the Hearing is not intended to, and you will n01
address either at the Hearing or in the subsequent Order evidencing the ruling(s) at the
Hearing, any of Google's underlying objections to the Subpoena.
As we discussed, if Plaintiffs are successful in defeating the motion to quash and
there is no successful appeal of that ruling, GoogJe wiII provide Plaintiffs with documcnts
responsive to the Subpoena, subject to its objections. After Google provides its
documents, you will contact me to discuss any additional information required by the
Subpoena and the propriety of Go ogle's objections to the Subpoena. If the need arises, a
hearing at a later date wiII be scheduled to address any additional information requested
by the Subpoena and Google's objections to the Subpoena.
If r have accurately stated our agreement, please indicate so by signing your name
in the space provided and returning your signature to me as soon as possible. If you have
'MI. 101m S. Morgan
January 6, 2010
Page 2
any questions, or if we need to discuss anything furtb.er at this time, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
DML/rll








EXHIBIT F
Subpoena / Subpoena Duces Tecum
Cause No: 184,784
PRK Enterprises, et.al.
v.
Google USA, Inc. et. al.





YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON;
Google, Inc.
Through It's Lawyer of Record - Dennis Lynch
901 Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75202-3796
In The District Court
172
nd
Judicial District
Jefferson County, Texas
To Return Said Documents: Stephen Hartman Process Server / Records, P.O. Box
1212, Nederland, Texas 77627 (409) 729-8798 x 6 as further described herein:
Please See Attacbed Exbibit "A"
As Requested By :
Jobn Morgan
550 Fannin Street
Suite 650
Beaumont, Texas 77701
(409) 832-8382
TRCP 176. a (a) Contempt: Failure be any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena service
upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the courtfrom which the subpoena is issued or a district
court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punished by fine or confinement, or
both.
RETURN OF SERVICE
Came to hand this 0?1t1- day of ,2007 ,at 10 o'clock
and executed on this ,;ljt!= day _______ , 2fP'1, at
'3 : 00 eo' clock, in the following manner: by delivering to the within named witness
m\.& p' at the location known as
3L/CG Ie... 01;
qC)( ma...lM.. S\ fDe(CWfYX / , in the of 'J:>cJLiCU\ , a true
copy hereof, and tendering the fee of $ J - , plus a fee of $ for records,
which was accepted.
Returned this day of __ <-.::<..yP::..w=-4-'--__ , .
Officer erving Subp ena / Affiant
Badge / TSC # "5Slo"!>
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BY , on this the
___ day
seal of office :
__________ /20 __ , to attest witness my hand and
SEAL
ATTORNEY REQUESTING :
NOTARY
In and for the State of Texas
John S. Morgan
Attorney at Law
550 Fannin, Suite 650
Beaumont, Texas 77701
Tx 14447575, LA 19968 Bar Cards
ATTORNEY'S FOR THE: PLANTIFF
IInl\l\ I \J L I'LL I lIULvLLI\
PRKENTE:RPRISES, INc. AND KLEIN
INVEsTMENTS, INC.
VS.
No. 184,784





GooGLE, INc., BLoGGER..COM,
WWW,OPEMTIONKLEINWAEH..BLOGSPOT-
gm AND WWW.SAMTBJj:EAGLIYSA.
BLQGSPOLCOM
EXHIBIT &SA"
r I\A NO. 4U::Ilhhl414U
IN THE DISTlUCf COURT OF
JEFFERSON COlJNTY, TEXAS
171l'fD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
1. Any and all identifiers, user account lP addresses, user access Email Addresses,
user entry logs, user posting logs, registered user information, account access IP
addresses andlor any identi(ying descriptors for the following blogspots for the
previous year:
a) h!U>:l/samtheeaaJ,eusa.blo8Potcoml
b) http://operationkleinwatch.bloPJ)ot.coml
c) hup://www.nottbisonetoojacques.blogs.pot.coml
2. To identify all parties, persons, or entities responsible for the website
www.QPerationkleinwatch.blolWJ<)t.com and www,samtheeagleusa.bloppot.cOlll:.
p. UUa/004
3. IdentifY all persons, parties or entities who provide contributions of money or literary
substance to these websites.
4. IdentifY all persons, parties or entities who posted comments on these websites andlor
have provided financial support to these websites.
5. Identify all persons, parties or entities who are in anyway affiliated with, or connected
with in any capacity, these websites.
111'11\1\1" LI Y['LI UUL0LLI\ 11'1)\ nU. '1UJUIJIJ'H.'IU
r UU'II UV'I
CEBUFICAIE OF SUVICI(
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a 1rue and COlTect copy of the foregoing
document has been provided to all counsel of record, via facsimile on this day of
____ -".2009.
Dennis M. Lynch
901 Maht Street
Dallas, Texas 75202-3796
V"14CM/RRR
lsi John S. Morgan
JOHN S. MORGAN








EXHIBIT G








EXHIBIT H








EXHIBIT I








EXHIBIT J








EXHIBIT K








EXHIBIT L








EXHIBIT M

STATE RULES
TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PART II. RULES OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS

TEX. R. CIV. P. 202 (2010)

Rule 202 Depositions Before Suit or to Investigate Claims

202.1. Generally. A person may petition the court for an order authorizing the taking of
a deposition on oral examination or written questions either:
(a) to perpetuate or obtain the persons own testimony or that of any other person
for use in an anticipated suit; or
(b) to investigate a potential claim or suit.
202.2. Petition. The petition must:
(a) be verified;
(b) be filed in a proper court of any county:
(1) where venue of the anticipated suit may lie, if suit is anticipated; or
(2) where the witness resides, if no suit is yet anticipated;
(c) be in the name of the petitioner;
(d) state either:
(1) that the petitioner anticipates the institution of a suit in which the peti-
tioner may be a party; or
(2) that the petitioner seeks to investigate a potential claim by or against peti-
tioner;
(e) state the subject matter of the anticipated action, if any, and the petitioner's in-
terest therein;
(f) if suit is anticipated, either:
(1) state the names of the persons petitioner expects to have interests adverse
to petitioners in the anticipated suit, and the addresses and telephone
numbers for such persons; or
(2) state that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons peti-
tioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner's in the anticipated
suit cannot be ascertained through diligent inquiry, and describe those per-
sons;
(g) state the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons to be deposed,
the substance of the testimony that the petitioner expects to elicit from each, and
the petitioner's reasons for desiring to obtain the testimony of each; and
(h) request an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons
named in the petition.


202.3. Notice and Service.
(a) Personal Service on Witnesses and Persons Named. At least 15 days before the
date of the hearing on the petition, the petitioner must serve the petition and a
notice of the hearingin accordance with Rule 21aon all persons petitioner
seeks to depose and, if suit is anticipated, on all persons petitioner expects to
have interests adverse to petitioner's in the anticipated suit.
(b) Service by Publication on Persons Not Named.
(1) Manner. Unnamed persons described in the petition whom the petitioner
expects to have interests adverse to petitioners in the anticipated suit, if
any, may be served by publication with the petition and notice of the hear-
ing. The notice must state the place for the hearing and the time it will be
held, which must be more than 14 days after the first publication of the no-
tice. The petition and notice must be published once each week for two
consecutive weeks in the newspaper of broadest circulation in the county
in which the petition is filed, or if no such newspaper exists, in the news-
paper of broadest circulation in the nearest county where a newspaper is
published.
(2) Objection to Depositions Taken on Notice by Publication. Any interested
party may move, in the proceeding or by bill of review, to suppress any
deposition, in whole or in part, taken on notice by publication, and may
also attack or oppose the deposition by any other means available.
(c) Service in Probate Cases. A petition to take a deposition in anticipation of an
application for probate of a will, and notice of the hearing on the petition, may
be served by posting as prescribed by Section 33(f)(2) of the Probate Code. The
notice and petition must be directed to all parties interested in the testator's es-
tate and must comply with the requirements of Section 33(c) of the Probate
Code insofar as they may be applicable.
(d) Modification by Order. As justice or necessity may require, the court may
shorten or lengthen the notice periods under this rule and may extend the notice
period to permit service on any expected adverse party.
202.4. Order.
(a) Required Findings. The court must order a deposition to be taken if, but only if,
it finds that:
(1) allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition may prevent a fail-
ure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit; or
(2) the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposi-
tion to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of
the procedure.



(b) Contents. The order must state whether a deposition will be taken on oral ex-
amination or written questions. The order may also state the time and place at
which a deposition will be taken. If the order does not state the time and place at
which a deposition will be taken, the petitioner must notice the deposition as re-
quired by Rules 199 or 200. The order must contain any protections the court
finds necessary or appropriate to protect the witness or any person who may be
affected by the procedure.
202.5. Manner of Taking and Use. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, deposi-
tions authorized by this rule are governed by the rules applicable to depositions
of nonparties in a pending suit. The scope of discovery in depositions authorized
by this rule is the same as if the anticipated suit or potential claim had been
filed. A court may restrict or prohibit the use of a deposition taken under this
rule in a subsequent suit to protect a person who was not served with notice of
the deposition from any unfair prejudice or to prevent abuse of this rule.