Voigts' Interrogatories

2

)

3 4

5 6

7

DAVID P. BANCROFT (5B #052106) GEORGE D. NIESPOLO (Sa 1072107) DANIEL E. KRITZ (58 #148714) SIDEMAN & BANCROFT A Partnership Including Professional Corporations Eighth Floor One Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 392-1960

RECEIVED

NOV 0 9 1994 ~~ waIdlTJan &. Kine

Attorneys for Defendant KEITH L. VOIGTS

8

.. r-

r

10

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

o~

11

u~

12

(!~

Z~

~ ~=

..o

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

~

lJ..';

~

9

m.~ ~

..

~

13

FREDERICK S. WYLE, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of HAMILTON TAFT & COMPANY, Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

16

17

KPMG PEAT MARWICK, a general partnership; KEITH L. VOIGTS; and DOES ONE through TWENTY, inclusive,

18 19

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 950522

) )

) ) ) )

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

) ) )

) ) )

----------------)

20 21

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Plaintiff, FREDERICK S. WYLE

22

RESPONDING PARTY:

Defendant, KEITH L. VOIGTS

23

SET NUMBER:

ONE (Special)

24

Keith L. Voigts ("VOIGTS") responds to Plaintiffs' First Set

25

of special Interrogatories as follows:

26

III III III

- - - ----I--.o=.r'='-6

;... '.'j'

27 28

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORTF.~

-,

-

GENERAL STATEMENT 1.

2

VOIGTS objects that these interrogatories are premature

3

as discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing which may

4

lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from

5

the responses set forth herein.

6

supplement these responses as his investigation and discovery

7

proceeds. 2.

8

VOIGTS reserves the right to

VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent

9

they seek information protected by the work product doctrine, the

10

attorney-client privilege, andlor any other applicable privilege.

l-

lL

0

...

III

£r U Z <{

...'d rIl II.

o

.Y

3.

11

VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent

12

they are overbroad, unduly

13

information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of

14

this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

15

admissible evidence .

b~rdensorne

and oppressive, and seek

~

« ..J .l.

w 0

-

If)

4.

16

VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent

17

they seek information in the possession or control of individuals

18

or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that they are unduly

19

burdensome and oppressive. 5.

20

VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent

21

they seek information already within plaintiffs' possession on the

22

grounds that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive. 6.

23

Except where these interrogatories specifically indicate

24

otherwise, VOIGTS is interpreting them only to request information

25

pertaining to the time period during which PEAT MARWICK was

26

engaged to perform services for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG and the

27

ARMSTRONG entities.

28

/11 DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

2 -

7.

These General Objections are expressly incorporated by

2

reference into each of the responses that follow as if fully set

3

forth therein.

4

INTERROGATORIES

5 6

INTERROGATORY NO.1: Identify all services performed by defendant VOIGTS for or on

7 8

behalf of HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or any entity owned or

9

controlled by ARMSTRONG as to which YOU contend that VOIGTS was

10

not acting as the agent of defendant PEAT HARWICK.

II

of these interrogatories, "HAMILTON TAFT" means Hamilton Taft &

a: u

12

Co.; "ARMSTRONG" means Connie C. Armstrong, Jr.; "PEAT MARWICK"

ci

13

means KPMG Peat Marwicki and "YOU/YOUR/YOURSELF" and "VOIGTS"

...o -..

14

means Keith L. Voigts •

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:

...lL. 0

~ u j;:

z

m

;

3 ~

w 0 U)

(For purposes

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

16

17

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

18

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

19

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

20

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

21

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

22

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

23

burdensome and oppressive.

24

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

25

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

26

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

27

and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

28

III

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

3 -

SUbject to,

responds as follows:

2

None while VOIGTS was a partner at PEAT

MARWICK.

3

4

5

INTERROGATORY NO.2: with respect to each service identified in YOUR response to

6

Interrogatory No.1, describe with particularity all facts on

7

which YOU base YOUR contention that VOIGTS was not acting as an

8

agent of PEAT MARWICK.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:

10

Not applicable.

~

1.L

0

12

<{

13

.-'

14

services (including, without limitation, review, analysis,

15

investigation and discussion) provided by YOU to HAMILTON TAFT,

16

ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG

17

concerning permissible uses of funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT

18

client tax deposits.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:

z

Ul

w

u

;;:

l&.

0

11

a: u

m

INTERROGATORY NO.3: Describe in detail the substance of any advice or other

~

~

2:

w 0 -(J)

20

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

21

as to the use of the word "permissible.

22

to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks

23

information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of

24

this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

25

admissible evidence.

26

to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

27

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

28

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

1t

VOIGTS further objects

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

VOIGTS further objects to

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 4 -

_

" .. 1

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

....

u..

0

n:

2

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

3

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

4

and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

5

responds as follows:

6

provide advice or services to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities

7

owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG concerning permissible uses of

8

funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT tax deposits.

9

provide limited analyses of section 7501 of the Internal Revenue

PEAT HARWICK did

Code, and its analyses is summarized in the work papers, bates

11

numbered PM006761-62.

12

«

13

~ u i: lD ... 0_".

VOIGTS was not engaged to and did not

10

U

z

Subject to

14

INTERROGATORY NO.4: Describe in detail all investigation, research, analysis or

~

~,

.l.

w

15

other steps taken by YOU to satisfy YOURSELF that the use of

16

HAMILTON TAFT funds from client tax deposits to fund investments

17

and acquisitions by ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by

18

ARMSTRONG was permissible.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4:

0

-

(J)

20

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

21

as to the use of

22

to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks

23

information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of

24

this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

25

admissible evidence.

26

to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

27

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

28

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

tr~

word "permissible."

VOIGTS further objects

VOIGTS further Objects to this interrogatory

VOIGTS further objects to

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 5 -

.....U

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to 2

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

3

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

4

and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

5

responds as follows:

6

No.3, which is incorporated herein by reference.

7

VOIGTS had discussions with HAMILTON TAFT'S attorneys, concerning

8

their attorney letter prepared for the March 31, 19B9 aUdit, in

9

which the attorneys stated that the use of HAMILTON

Subject to

See Voigts Response to Special Interrogatory In addition,

TAFT

funds

10

from client tax deposits to fund investments and acquisitions by

11

ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG was

rr u z

12

permissible.

« [J)

13

1(

14

l1.1..

a

~

:2:

w

15

Identify all loans, acquisitions, investments and other

16

transactions entered into by HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any

17

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG that YOU knew or

18

understood were funded, directly or indirectly, with HAMILTON TAFT

19

funds.

20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5:

0

-

(f)

INTERROGATORY NO.5:

21

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

22

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

23

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

24

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

25

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

26

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

27

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

28

burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 6 -

-

....

:./

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to 2

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

3

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

4

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

5

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

6

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

7

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

8

produced to plaintiff.

9

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these Subject

10

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

11

responds as follows:

U Z 4:

12

VOIGTS was told that, based on review of the financial statements

m

13

of HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies, funds were

~

0

t(J

14

transferred between HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies.

15

VOIGTS' understanding was that the early investments -- like PIF,

16

weir Bros. and River City Fair -- were funded with HAMILTON TAFT

17

funds.

18

VOIGTS ultimately learned -- like the oil and gas leases, the

19

Seventh at Sonterra, the Double C Ranch, and Parker Automotive

20

VOIGTS did not have a clear understanding to what extent HAMILTON

21

TAFT funds were used, but he assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds were

22

used.

23

acting in accordance with the advice of its counsel and was making

24

its own determinations as to the use of its funds.

25

did not seek PEAT MARWICK's or VOIGTS' advice in connection with

26

such determinations.

27

III

28

III

llL.

0 0:

til \oJ

U IL

~

I

w 0 -

Ul

During the course of professional services,

with respect to those of the later investments of which

VOIGTS was informed and believed that HAMILTON TAFT was

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

HAMILTON TAFT

- 7 -

INTERROGATORY NO.6: 2

3

that indicated that it was or would be improper, unlawful or

4

imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT monies to fund investments and

5

expenditures by ARMSTRONG or by entities owned or controlled by

6

ARMSTRONG.

7

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6:

8 9

10.

... 0

~

VOIGTS also objects

11

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and

U Z

12

burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant


13

to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to

t<J

14

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

IS

objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information

16

in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than

17

VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

18

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

19

purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in

20

this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly

21

burdensome and oppressive.

22

to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the

23

making of a compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from

24

PEAT MARWICK's documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers

25

which were previously produced to plaintiff.

26

compiling the list of these documents would be the same for

27

plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

28

and his General objections, VOIGTS responds as follows:

((

w

as to the words "improper" and "imprudent."

that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."

0

u

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

10 lLL

(JI

Describe in detail all facts disclosed to YOU or known by YOU

m

I

w 0

-

(J)

VOIGTS further

VOIGTS further objects that responding

The burden of

SUbject to, and without waiving, these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 8 -

VOIGTS is

unable to fUlly respond to this interrogatory as discovery is 2

ongoing and the interrogatory is too vague.

3

aware of no facts which would indicate that nit was or would be

4

improper, unlawful or imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT monies to

5

fund investments and expenditures by ARMSTRONG or by entities

6

owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

7

his interim reports that HAMILTON TAFT was permitted to profit

8

from at least some investments of the funds deposited by its

9

clients to pay taxes.

If

However, VOIGTS was

In fact, plaintiff admits in

Thus, by plaintiff's own admission, it

10

would not be improper, unlawful or imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT

11

monies to fund at least some types of investments by HAMILTON

U

12

TAFT, an entity plaintiff alleges was owned or controlled by

~

13

ARMSTRONG.

-~

14

MARWICK that HAMILTON TAFT faced potential liability in the event

.

15

that it did not pay its customers' taxes but that the use of funds

w

16

was a business decision for HAMILTON TAFT to make.

17

was told that HAMILTON TAFT's executives were aware of this advice

18

and that HAMILTON TAFT was making its own determinations as to how

19

it would use funds.

~ ~

0 OC

z

m

I

0

m

In addition, HAMILTON TAFT's attorneys informed PEAT

PEAT MARWICK

20

21

INTERROGATORY NO.7: state all facts· known by YOU between January 1988 and

22 23

March 20, 1991 relating to the diversion of HAMILTON TAFT's

24

clients' tax deposits, including, without limitation, the

25

increasing amounts of said diversions and the increasing penalties

26

paid by HAMILTON TAFT as a result of said diversions.

27

III

28

III DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 9 -

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0. 7: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

2 3

as to the word "diversion."

VOIGTS further objects to this

4

interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks

5

information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of

6

this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

7

admissible evidence.

8

to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

9

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

10

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

11

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

rr U

12

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

~

13

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

.~

14

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

15

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

16

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

17

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

18

produced to plaintiff.

19

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

20

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

21

responds as follows:

22

HAMILTON TAFT's client tax deposits.

~ ~

0

z

m

VOIGTS further objects to

VOIGTS

~

L

w 0

m

The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

VOIGTS was aware of no "diversion" of

23 24

INTERROGATORY NO.8: Oescribe each of the services performed by YOU at any time

25 26

between January 1988 and the present for ARMSTRONG andlor any

27

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

28

III DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 10 -

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2

~O.

8:

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

3

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

4

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

5

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

6

specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for

7

information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation

8

from PEAT MARWICK.

9

to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

10

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

11

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

U Z

12

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

et ..... ID

13

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

14

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

15

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

16

necessitate the preparation or the making of

17

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

18

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

19

produced to plaintiff.

20

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

21

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

22

responds as follows:

23

performance of the following services for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG

24

or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG:

IlJ..

0 0: III

w

~

o

.~

VOIGTS further objects to

VOIGTS

~

•

.J

""-

i:

w 0

-

(f)

25

1.

28

compilation,

The burden of compiling the list of these Subject

VOIGTS participated in PEAT MARWICK's

Acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT's balance sheet as of March 31, 1989.

26

27

a

2.

Review of HAMILTON TAFT'S balance sheet as of June 30, 1989.

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 11 -

-_.'

i"

3.

Uncompleted audit of HAMILTON TAFT's financial

2

statements as of and for the period ended December 31,

3

1989.

4

4.

Uncompleted audit of Dresdner Enterprise's financial

5

statements as of and for the period ended September 30,

6

1989.

7

5.

statements.

8 9

Uncompleted audit of Chase Development Corp. financial

6.

Preparation or advice related to the following tax

10

returns:

Chase Development Co. Form 1120 for

o

11

YE 9/30/87, Dreyfus Mortgage 1989, Dresdner capital

u z

12

1989, CCAJ, Inc. 1989, Dresdner Petroleum 1989,

«

13

Investments Inc. 1989, Remington Co. 1986, Dresdner

..

14

Enterprises 1987, Dresdner Enterprises 198B, Hamilton

15

Taft 1989, Suisse Texas Inc. 1989, Chase-Pulee Joint

w

16

venture 1989, Chase Development 1986, RCF Inc. or

lJ)

17

ARMSTRONG's personal returns.

IlJ..

a:

t:l

~

a'"

m

Dresdne~

J

.. 0(

~

L

o

18

7.

Advice related to the accounting theory applicable to a

19

proposed real estate investment plan involving zero

20

coupon bonds.

21

8.

meetings.

22

23

9.

Advice related to tax and accounting implications of restructuring.

24

25

Attendance as a guest at some Remington Advisory Board

10.

Dataccount businessman's review. Uncompleted engagement for agreed upon procedures with respect to PIF properties undertaken by PEAT MARWICK real estate personnel.

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS I SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 12 -

12.

Advice with respect to accounting treatment or tax

2

questions, from time to time as they arose, as specified

J

in VOIGTS' responses to special Interrogatories 13, 16,

4

28, 31, 34 and 35.

5

Subsequent to VOIGTS' separation from PEAT MARWICK, VOIGTS

6

did some consulting work for companies with which ARMSTRONG was

7

apparently associated and, for a brief period, was an employee of

8

CompUCheck, Inc., a public company in which ARMSTRONG had an

9

interest.

As a principal of the KLV Group, VOIGTS was engaged by

10

Chenal Corporation between September of 1991 and' January of 1992

11

to set up Chenal's accounts, perform bookkeeping functions,

U Z

12

supervise Chenal's outside payroll service, coordinate payroll for

<{

13

a separate entity owned by ARMSTRONG, and assist in the

~I(

14

development of business plans primarily to locate investment

15

opportunities.

w

16

Adelson, Voigts & Associates ("AVAil), VOIGTS assisted in the

-0

17

preparation of a business plan to establish a medical claims

18

factoring company, participated in analysis of potential

19

acquisitions, including an electronic claims processing company

20

and CompUCheck, Inc.

21

CornpUCheck, VOIGTS assisted CampUCheck's accounting department in

22

preparing its books for an aUdit, met with potential investors,

23

reviewed sale documents, assisted with due diligence, and met with

24

CompUCheck's officers regarding the liquidation of a bank debt.

25

After ARMSTRONG acquired CompUCheck on October 1, 1992, VOIGTS

26

became a director and, as of January 1, 1993, a vice president.

27

Although not the chief financial officer, VOIGTS was responsible

28

for top-level review of financial information in connection with

r-

LL

0

cr

m

..... ~

(/)

Subsequently, as a principal and associate in

Prior to ARMSTRONG'S acquisition of

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 13 -

aUditing functions and the filing of 10k reports.

He also

2

assisted in financial analyses for a business plan and operations

3

of CC Entertainment and Promotions, which became a subsidiary of

4

CompUCheck.

5

resigned his positions on July 31, 1993.

VOIGTS also worked on potential acquisitions.

VOIGTS

6

7

INTERROGATORY NO.9: Describe in detail all services and advice provided by YOU in

8

I-

IJ..

0

a::

U Z

9

connection with any proposed or actual business plan or strategy

to

for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled

11

by ARMSTRONG.

12

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.9:

See VOIGTS' Response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated


13

..• )(

14

herein by reference.

...

15

Interrogatory No.8, VOIGTS responds that he was not engaged to,

w

16

and did not, provide services and advice in connection with any

-Ul0

17

proposed or actual business plan or strategy for HAMILTON TAFT,

18

ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

19

MARWICK did provide advice related to the accounting theory

20

applicable to a proposed real estate investment plan involving

21

zero coupon bonds.

22

regarding the corporate organization of the various entities in

23

light of ARMSTRONG's business plan or strategy, but he did not

24

provide any services or advice with respect to what that plan or

25

strategy should be.

26

III III III

m

~

27

28

Except as identified in response to

PEAT

VOIGTS also had discussions with ARMSTRONG

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET ,OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 14 -

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 2

Describe in detail all tax advice and tax services,

3

including, without limitation, tax planning and preparation of tax

4

returns, that you provided for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT,

5

ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

7

8

See VOIGTS# response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated herein by reference.

9 10 ~ ~

0 ~

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe in detail all

acc~unting

services or advice,

U

12

including, without limitation, advice regarding accounting for

w ~ u

13

intercompany transactions, that YOU provided for or on behalf of

14

HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

15

ARMSTRONG.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

~

~

z

m

~

D~~ 7 ~ ~

~

I

w 0

m

17 18

See VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated

herein by reference.

19

20 21

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe in detail all services and advice provided by YOU in

22

connection with any and all loans or transfers of funds by

23

HAMILTON TAFT to ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

24

ARMSTRONG.

2S

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

26

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

27

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

~

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 15 -

calculated to lead to the discovery of t~

adm~ssible

evidence.

2

VOIGTS further objects

this interrogatory to the extent it

3

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

4

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

5

burdensome and oppressive.

6

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

7

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

8

grounds that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive.

9

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

10

necessitate the' preparation or the making of a compilation,

11

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

U

12

including from Peat's workpapers, which were previously produced

w ~

z rn

13

to plaintiff.

_.l(

14

would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

IS

without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds

16

that he is not aware of any professional services or advice

17

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which

18

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in his

19

response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein

20

by reference.

21

or advice provided to ARMSTRONG or any entities controlled by

22

ARMSTRONG in connection with any loans or transfers of funds by

23

HAMILTON TAFT.

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

~ ~

0 OC

~

u ~

~

o

The burden of compiling the list of these documents S~bject

to, and

~

~

, ~

w 0 ~

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any services

24

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

26

Identify all transactions or proposed transactions in

27

connection with which YOU provided advice or performed any

28

investigation or due diligence for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT, DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 16 -

ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and dppressive.

VOIGTS further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it

purport~

to require VOIGTS to

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously produced to plaintiff.

The burden of compiling the list of these

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

SUbject

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds as follows:

VOIGTS is not aware of any professional

services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those contained in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference.

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

transactions or proposed transactions in connection with which VOIGTS provided advice or performed any investigation or due diligence for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 17 -

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, except:

DataccDunt

2

businessman's review, and tax and/or accounting advice with

3

respect to the oil and gas leases as reflected in VOIGTS' Response

4

to Interrogatory No. 16 herein.

5 6

7

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

8

advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase by or on

9

behalf of ARMSTRONG of the Double C Ranch in Tyler, Texas.

10 ~ ~

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

o

tl

u

12

overbroad anc burdensome and seeks information which is neither

~

z

m

~

13

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

~

o

~

14

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

15

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

16

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

17

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

18

burdensome and oppressive.

19

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

20

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

21

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

22

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

23

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

24

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

25

inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

26

produced to plaintiff.

27

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

28

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

~ ~

J

4

I

w o ~

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 18 -

Subject

responds that he is not aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein by

reference.

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related to Double C Ranch in Tyler, Texas.

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts

related to the ranch, except that VOIGTS was told, after the ranch had been purchased, that the ranch had been purchased for substantially less than the seller's investment, with the intention of raising cattle for commercial sale.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or other transactions with Mohamed Hadid by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the around that it is compound and includes subparts.

VOIGTS further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 19 -

VOIGTS

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to 2

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

3

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

4

oppressive.

5

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

6

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

7

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

8

previously produced to plaintiff.

9

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

10

VOIGTS.

0

11

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

u

12

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

m w ~ u

13

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

14

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

IS

incorporates herein by reference.

16

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

17

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

18

to Mohamed Hadid.

19

to Hadid, except that, in the course of the audit of HAMILTON

20

TAFT's March 31, 1989 balance sheet, the balance sheet showed a

21

receivable from Hadid to HAMILTON TAFT.

22

HAMILTON TAFT's June 30, 1989 balance sheet, the Hadid debt had

23

been transferred to Dresdner and a note receivable from Dresdner

24

was reflected on the balance sheet.

25

was attempting to collect on the debt.

26

III III III

~ ~

rr

Z

~

~

o

m .~

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

~

~ ~

I

w 0 -~

27

28

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Later, as reflected in

VOIGTS was told that Dresdner

- 20 -

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: ~

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

2

3

advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of or

4

investment in oil and gas leasehold interests by ARMSTRONG or any

5

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

7 8

as to the phrase "with respect to the acquisition of or investment

9

in."

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad

10

and burdensome 'in that it seeks information which is neither

0

11

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

U

12

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Z q

13

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

o .X

14

is compound and includes subparts.

IS

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

w

16

or control of individuals

-

17

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

18

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

19

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

20

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

21

oppressive.

22

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

23

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

24

documents, inclUding from PEAT HARWICK'S workpapers which were

25

previously produced to plaintiff.

26

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

27

VOIGTS.

28

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

~

~

~

~

w

u ~

m

~

VOIGTS further objects to this

l

• ~

I

0

~

or entities other than VOIGTS on the VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 21 -

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or 1

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

3

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

4

incorporates herein by reference.

5

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

6

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

7

facts related to acquisition of or investment in oil and gas

8

leasehold interests by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

9

controlled by ARMSTRONG, except:

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

VOIGTS was told of Dresdner's

10

investment in an oil and gas lease and that the lease was expected

I1

to yield significant profits.

U

12

proven reserves which would pay back the acquisition and

~

13

extraction costs quickly and that the lease was acquired cheaply

~'~

14

because the prior owner could not afford to pay for water

15

flooding.

16

necessary, and that the property was producing oil.

17

believes that around the time the transaction was consummated, he

18

provided some advice relating to tax andlor accounting

19

implications.

20

advice.

~

~

0

~

z

m ,

!

w 0 -

m

VOIGTS was told that the land had

Later, VOIGTS was told that water flooding was not VOIGTS

VOIGTS does not recall the substance of that

21 22

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

23 24

advice provided by YOU with respect to leans to or investment in

25

or acquisition of Parker Automotive by ARMSTRONG or any entities

26

owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

27

III

28

III DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 22 -

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 2

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

3

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

4

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

5

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

6

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

7

is compound and includes sUbparts.

8

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

9

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

VOIGTS further objects to this

10

grounds that it· is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

11

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

~

~

0 ~

12

require VOIGTS to summarize the discoveryJto date in this or any

13

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

~

z ~ m

o

.~

14

oppressive.

IS

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

16

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

17

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

18

previously produced to plaintiff.

19

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

20

VOIGTS.

21

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

22

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

23

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

24

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

25

incorporates herein by reference.

26

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

27

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

28

to loans to or investment in or acquisition of Parker Automotive

U ~ ~

u

~

~

~

, ~

w

0

-

m

~

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 23 -

by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

cont~-olled

by ARMSTRONG.

2

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to Parker

3

Automotive, except:

4

Automotive, a public company.

5

was expected to yield significant profits.

6

to the board of directors of Parker Automotive without his

7

knowledge or consent.

8

that his name be withdrawn as a candidate.

VOIGTS was told of the investment in Parker VOIGTS was told that the investment VOIGTS was nominated

When he found out, he immediately insisted

9 10

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

~ ~

Describe in detail

~ll

facts known to YOU and any services or

0

11

U

12

advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of real

~

13

estate projects from the Resolution Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG

-~

14

or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

~

z

m ~

I

w -

16

0

m

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

17

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

18

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

19

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

20

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

21

is compound and includes subparts.

22

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

2J

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

24

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

25

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

26

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

27

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

28

oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

24 -

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 2

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

3

documents, inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

4

previously produced to plaintiff.

5

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

6

VOIGTS.

7

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

8

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

9

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

The burden of compiling the

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

10

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

0

11

incorporates herein by reference.

U

12

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

13

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

14

to the acquisition of real estate projects from the Resolution

15

Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled

16

by ARMSTRONG other than those

17

response to Interrogatory No. 8 related to the attempted "zero

18

coupon bond" deal.

19

related to RTC properties, except:

20

acquisition of an RTC property in San Antonio.

~ ~

OC

~

z

w ~

~ ~

m

~

o -'(

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

J

• ~

I

w m

0

services identified in VOIGTS'

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts VOIGTS was told of the

21 22 23

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

24

advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in

25

Professional Investment Fund.

26

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

27

28

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 25 -

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 2

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

4

is compound and includes sUbparts.

5

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

6

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

7

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

8

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

9

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

10

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

11

oppressive.

U

12

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

~

13

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from

.1(

14

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

15

previously produced to plaintiff.

16

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

17

VOIGTS.

18

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

19

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

20

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

21

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 35,

22

which VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference.

23

VOIGTS is not aware of any professional services provided to

24

HAMIJ~ON

25

interest with respect to loans to or investment in Professional

26

Investment Fund other than PEAT HARWICK's work related to the

27

Dresdner note receivable as reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers

28

including, but not limited to, those bates stamped PM007325-26i

~ ~

0 ~

z

m

~

w

a m

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

PEAT

HARWICK's

The burden of compiling the

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

specifically,

TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

26 -

PM007410i PM007431i PM006975-77i PM006255-59i PM002110-2114i

2 3

~ ~

PM002508-2509i PM007003-7015i PMOOI027-104J.

The above-referenced workpapers do not reflect any services

4

or advice provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in

5

which ARMSTRONG had an interest with respect to any determination

6

to make loans to or investments in Professional Investment Fund.

7

In addition to what is reflected in the workpapers, VOIGTS was

8

told that ARMSTRONG was getting out of the partnership because of

9

disagreements with the other owners.

10 INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

a

II

u

12

w ~

13

advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to, investment in or

14

acquisition of River city Fair in San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG

15

or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

~

Z

~

~

~

~

o

m

.~

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

~

~

!

w 0

m

17

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

18

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

19

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

20

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

21

V01GTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

22

is compound and includes subparts.

23

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

24

or control of individuals or entities other than

25

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

26

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

27

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

28

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIG~S

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 27 -

on the

VOIGTS

oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

2

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

3

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

4

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

5

previously produced to plaintiff.

6

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

7

VOIGTS.

8

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

9

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

10

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

11

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

12

incorporates herein by reference.

13

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

14

ARMSTRONG, or entities in Which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

IS

to loans to, investment in or acquisition of River city Fair in

w

16

San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

m

17

controlled by ARMSTRONG.

18

related to River City Fair, except:

19

to ARMSTRONG's acquisition of HAMILTON TAFT, HAMILTON TAFT had a

20

pre-existing interest in River City Fair.

21

the project was being developed, that the development costs

22

exceeded budget, and that the partners had some disagreement

23

regarding who would put up the additional funds.

24

familiar with the physical facility, location and concept of River

25

city Fair.

26

III III III

r ~ 0 ~

U

z ~ m _.~

L

0

27 28

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts VOIGTS was told that, prior

VOIGTS was told that

VOIGTS was

He knew that similar ventures had been very popular.

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

28 -

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 2

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

3

advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of

4

interests in Rodeo Partners and Pro Rodeo, Inc. by ARMSTRONG or

5

any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

7

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, an~

8

overbroad and burdensome

seeks information which is neither

9

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

10

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

£r U Z

12

is compound and includes subparts.

<{

13

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

O.r-'~

14

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

15

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

W

16

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

(f)

17

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

18

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

19

oppressive.

20

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

21

compilation,

22

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

23

previously produced to plaintiff.

24

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

25

VOIGTS.

26

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

27

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

28

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

~

I.L

o

~

~ ...

m

~

o

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

abstr~ct,

aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

29 -

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS 2

incorporates herein by reference.

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

3

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

4

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

5

facts related to the acquisition of interests in Rodeo Partners

6

and Pro Rodeo, Inc. by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

7

controlled by ARMSTRONG.

8 9 10 ~ ~

advice provided by YOU with respect to political and charitable

12

contributions made by ARMSTRONG.

(

13

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

~

14

~

U Z ~

u

~

~

0

!

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

11

0

~

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

m

i

w

a~

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

15

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

16

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

17

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

18

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

19

is compound and includes subparts.

20

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

21

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

22

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

23

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

24

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

25

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

26

oppressive.

27

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

28

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

30 -

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were 2

previously produced to plaintiff.

The burden of compiling the

3

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

4

VOIGTS.

5

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

6

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

7

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

8

reflected in VOIGTS 1 response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

9

incorporates herein by reference.

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

10

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

0

11

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

U

12

to political and charitable contributions made by ARMSTRONG.

13

was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to any such political

14

and charitable contributions, except:

15

ARMSTRONG had made contributions to a Texas gubernatorial

w

16

candidate and to a charitable youth organization.

-

17

~ ~

~

z ~ m .~

~

i ~

Nor

VOIGTS was told that

0

m

18 19

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

20

advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to members of the

21

McCall family of Plano, Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned

22

or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

24

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

25

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

26

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

27

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

28

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 31 -

is compound and includes sUbparts.

VOIGTS further objects to this

2

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

3

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

4

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

5

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

6

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

7

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

8

oppressive.

9

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

10

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

11

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

rr u

12

previously produced to plaintiff.

~

13

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

o ,,11

14

VOIGTS.

15

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

w

16

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

W

17

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

18

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

19

incorporates herein by reference.

20

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

21

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

22

facts related to loans to members of the McCall family of Plano,

23

Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

24

ARMSTRONG.

~ ~

0

~ ~

~

~

z

m

~

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

J

~

I

a

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

25 26

27 28

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

32 -

Weir Bros., an excavation company in Dallas, Texas, by ARMSTRONG 2

or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

3

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

4

6

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

7

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

8

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

9

is compound and includes sUbparts.

VOIGTS further objects to this

11

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

U

12

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

~

13

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

14

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

15

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

16

oppressive.

17

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

18

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

19

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

20

previously produced to plaintiff.

21

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

22

VOIGTS.

23

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

24

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

25

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

26

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

27

incorporates herein by reference.

28

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

lL.

a::

...

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

0

til

5

10

l-

z

.: m ... o tJt J ," «' .J

u

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

~

w 0

-

(J)

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

33 -

--------------------

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related 2

to loans to or investment in Weir Bros., an excavation company in

3

Dallas, Texas, by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

4

ARMSTRONG.

5

Weir Bros., except:

6

acquisition, VOIGTS was told that Weir Bros. had been purchased,

7

that it had contracts, and that it presented favorable business

8

opportunities.

Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to After the decision had been made to make the

9

10 ~ ~

~

~

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

o

11

u z

12

advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase of football

13

stadium boxes at Texas Stadium by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned

14

or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

oc

~

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

(

m

~-~

16

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

17

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

18

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

19

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

20

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

21

is compound and includes subparts.

22

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

23

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

24

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

25

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

26

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

27

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

28

oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

34 -

1

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

2

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

3

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

4

previously produced to plaintiff.

5

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

6

VOIGTS.

7

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

8

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

9

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

The burden of compiling the

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

10

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

11

incorporates herein by reference.

12

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

13

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

14

facts related to the purchase of football stadium boxes at Texas

15

stadium by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

w

16

ARMSTRONG.

-

17

.... ~

0

cr

U

z
m .l(

( ~

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

a

U}

IB 19

INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

20

advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in

21

Ccffea International by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

22

controlled by ARMSTRONG.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

24

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

25

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

26

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

27

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

28

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

35 -

II

" II

II

is compound and includes subparts.

II

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

I'

2 I

31

I,

4

i

VOIGTS further objects to this

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

5

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

6

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

7

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

8

oppressive.

9

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

10

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

0

11

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

U Z

12

previously produced to plaintiff.

~

13

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

_.~

14

VOIGTS.

.

15

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

w

16

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

17

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

18

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS

19

incorporates herein by reference.

20

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

21

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

22

facts related to loans to or investment in Coffea International by

23

ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

llL

IX

m .(

I

0

-

(1)

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

24 25

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

26

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

27

advice provided by YOU with respect to the proposed acquisition by

28

ARMSTRONG or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG of real DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

36 -

estate from financial institutions by a method involving zerocoupon

u.s.

Treasury bonds or stripped securities, including,

without limitation, any participation by YOU in presentations to, or the preparation of presentation

material~

for, prospective

sellers. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome ann seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is compound and includes subparts.

VOIGTS further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or entities .other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously produced to plaintiff.

The burden of compiling the

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

37 -

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

~

0

4

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or

5

facts related to the proposed acquisition by ARMSTRONG or entities

6

owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG of real estate from financial

7

institutions by a method involving zero-coupon

8

or stripped securities other than those services identified in

9

VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No.

B

u.s.

Treasury bonds

concerning the advice

investment strategy involving zero-coupon bonds.

U

12

advised ARMSTRONG that PEAT MARWICK could not issue an opinion

(

z m

13

concurring with the accounting treatment proposed by ARMSTRONG and

~

14

his executives.

15

having any involvement in, presentations to, or the preparation of

16

presentation materials for, prospective sellers, except:

17

was told that Remington had some formal discussions with banks,

18

but was told that for the transaction to be feasible, it had to be

19

shown on the bank's books as a sale.

20

participating in any such discussions.

21

ever seeing any presentation materials, but believes that he was

22

told that presentation materials were being put together.

OC

~

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

11

~

u

3

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

related to the accounting theory applicable to a proposed

0 ~

incorporates herein by reference.

10

~

~

2

~

~

I

w 0

m

PEAT

MARWI~K

VOIGTS was not aware of, and does not recall

VOIGTS

VOIGTS does not recall VOIGTS does not recall

23

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

25 26

advice provided by YOU with respect to the reorganization or

27

III

28

III DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

38 -

restructuring of the various entities owned or controlled by 2

ARMSTRONG.

3

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

4

10I

...~ (I-

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

6

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

7

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

8

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

9

is compound and includes subparts.

VOIGTS further objects to this posses~ion

interrogatory -to the extent it seeks information in the

11

or control of individuals or

u z

12

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

<{

13

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

.~

14

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

15

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

w

16

oppressive.

-Ul0

17

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

18

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

19

documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

20

previously produced to plaintiff.

21

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

22

VOIGTS.

23

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

24

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

25

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

26

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

27

incorporates herein by reference.

28

VOIGTS if there were any differences between HAMILTON TAFT being

0 rr

U

5

10 flJ.

III

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

m , ;.. c{ ~

e~tities

other than VOIGTS on the VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, ARMSTRONG asked

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

39 -

owned as a sister corporation to the Texas companies and HAMILTON 2

TAFT being a parent or sUbsidiary of the Texas companies.

VOIGTS

3

advised ARMSTRONG that, aside from some differences in accounting

4

treatment, there would be no material difference because the same

5

information would have to be disclosed on audited financial

6

statements either way.

7 8

9

Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

10

advice providea by YOU with respect to the use of HAMILTON TAFT

0

II

assets to fund general operating expenses of other entities owned

U

12

or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

13

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

~ ~

~

Z w ~ u ~

~

INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

m

~

o--~

~

L

w -

14 15

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

16

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

17

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

18

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

19

is compound and includes sUbparts.

20

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

21

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

22

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

23

further Objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

24

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

25

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

26

oppressive.

27

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

28

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

0

~

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

40 -

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were 2

previously produced to plaintiff.

The burden of compiling the

3

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

4

VOIGTS.

5

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

6

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

7

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

8

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 8 which

9

VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference.

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is

10

not aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

11

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

12

to the use of HAMILTON TAFT assets to fund general operating

13

expenses of other entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

14

was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to the use of HAMILTON

15

TAFT assets to fund general operating expenses of other entities,

16

except:

17

income, but he did not know to what extent that income was used

18

for operating expenses.

19

were used for operating expenses, but did not know to what extent.

llL

0

...111

...~

cr U z

«

m

l&.

~--,'\

I w 0

-

U)

Nor

VOIGTS was told that the acquisitions were generating

VOIGTS assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds

20

21

22

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

23

advice provided by YOU with respect to the issuance of bonds in

24

October 1990 to HAMILTON TAFT by The Remington Companies, Inc.,

25

Dresdner Petroleum, Inc., and Winthrop Realty.

26

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

27 28

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 41 -

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 2

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

4

is compound and includes sUbparts.

5

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

6

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

7

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

8

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

9

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

10

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

11

oppressive.

U

12

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

~

13

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

IJI

14

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

15

previously produced to plaintiff.

16

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

17

VOIGTS.

18

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

19

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

20

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

21

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

22

incorporates herein by reference.

23

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

24

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest and has

25

no recollection of facts related to the issuance of bonds in

26

October 1990 to HAMILTON TAFT by The Remington Companies, Inc.,

27

Dresdner Petroleum, Inc., and winthrop Realty, except that a

28

III

~ ~

0

~

z

m

L w 0 -

~

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

The burden of compiling the

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 42 -

company in Kansas City may have been considering a financing 2

arrangement involving bonds.

J

4 5

INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Identify all instances in which YOU advised ARMSTRONG or any

6

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG not to make an

7

investment, acquisition, loan or expenditure or that it would be

8

improper, unlawful or imprudent to make an investment,

9

acquisition, loan or expenditure, including, without limitation,

10

YOUR reasons

11

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

f~r

such advice.

~

lJ..

0

a:: u

12

Z

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

«

13

as to the words "improper" and "imprudent."

.~

14

that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."

15

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and

16

burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant

17

to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to

18

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19

objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information

20

in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than

21

VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

22

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

23

purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in

24

this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly

25

burdensome and oppressive.

26

to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the

27

making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from

28

PEAT MARWICK's documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers

m

!

w 0

-

Ul

VOIGTS also objects

VOIGTS further

VOIGTS further objects that responding

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

43 -

which were previously produced to plaintiff.

The burden of

2

compiling the list of these documents would be the same for

3

plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

4

and his General objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware

5

of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG

6

or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

7

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS

8

incorporates herein by reference.

9

believed that HAMILTON TAFT was acting in accordance with the

Subject to, and without waiving, these

VOIGTS was informed and

10

advice of its counsel and was making its own determinations as to

11

the use of its funds.

It U

12

or VOIGTS' advice in connection with such determinations, and tJ

<{

13

VOIGTS' knowledge, neither VOIGTS nor PEAT MARWICK ever gave any

14

such advice.

15

accounting for a proposed real estate transaction involving zero

w

16

coupon bonds.

-

17

ARMSTRONG had proposed for the proposed transaction was not

18

feasible.

.... lL

0

z

HAMILTON TAFT did not seek PEAT MARWICK's

CD .• J(

2:

a

(/)

PEAT MARWICK was asked for advice related to the

PEAT MARWICK advised ARMSTRONG that the accounting

19

20 21

INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or

22

advice provided by YOU with respect to any personal expenditures,

23

investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

25

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous,

26

especially with respect to the phrase "personal expenditures."

27

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and

28

burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 44 -

to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to ,/'

-

'~

2

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

VOIGTS further

3

objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is compound

4

and includes sUbparts.

5

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

6

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

7

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

8

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

9

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

10

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

11

oppressive.

U

12

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

w ~ u

13

compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's

14

documents, including from

15

previously produced to plaintiff.

w

16

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

-

17

VOIGTS.

18

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any

19

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

20

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those

21

reflected in VOIGT3' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 which VOIGTS

22

incorporates herein by reference.

23

aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

24

ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

25

to any personal investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG.

26

Nor is VOIGTS aware of any facts related to any personal

27

investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG, except:

re

told VOIGTS that he had an interest in a building in Los Angeles

~ ~

0

OC

~

~

z

rn

~

0 _,J(

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

PEAT

HARWICK's workpapers which were

~

~

i

0

~

The burden of compiling the

SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

Specifically, VOIGTS is not

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO Ph~INTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 45 -

ARMSTRONG

\~~-6~

that had been refinanced, which provided income to ARMSTRONG. 1

ARMSTRONG told Voigts that he had managed some Grandy's

3

restaurants and had received some income for that.

4

believed that ARMSTRONG drew salaries from HAMILTON TAFT and the

5

Texas companies.

6

expenditures of ARMSTRONG for major purchases or luxury goods,

7

except that, after the Double C Ranch was purchased, VOIGTS

8

learned that title to the ranch was in ARMSTRONG'S name, pledged

9

as security for a note to HAMILTON TAFT.

VOIGTS

VOIGTS had no knowledge of any personal

10 llL

0

cr

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Describe in detail any business opportunities or proposed

U

12

1/1 10I

c{

13

investments, acquisitions or other transactions that YOU found for

...

[{)

14

or presented to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

15

controlled by ARMSTRONG.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

z

u

?- .Ji t

i

w U) 0

17

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

18

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

19

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

20

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

22

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

23

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

24

burdensome and oppressive.

25

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

26

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

27

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

28

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 46 -

VOIGTS

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, 2

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

3

including from

4

produced to plaintiff.

5

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

6

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

7

responds that he is not aware of any professional services

8

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which

9

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'

10

response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein

11

by reference.

12

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or

13

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to

14

any business opportunities or proposed investments, acquisitions

15

or other transactions that VOIGTS found for or presented to

w

16

HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by

-

17

ARMSTRONG, except:

18

transaction to Remington.

19

this lawsuit, had Remington pursued the deal, VOIGTS did not stand

20

to benefit financially.

21

VOIGTS also informed ARMSTRONG of a potential short-term

22

investment to fund an airplane purchase.

23

informing ARMSTRONG of any other potential investments.

24

of the above instances did VOIGTS recommend or advise ARMSTRONG or

25

Remington to make the investment.

26

//1

27

//1

28

/11

~ ~

0 ~

U Z

~

u ~ ~ ~

(

m

o -.

PEAT

MARWICK's workpapers which were previously The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

~

~

I

0

m

VOIGTS introduced the Park Row Shopping Center Contrary to plaintiff's accusations in

Remington did not pursue the deal.

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

VOIGTS does not recall

- 47 -

In none

INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 2

Describe in detail any services or advice (including, without

3

limitation, accounting advice) provided by YOU with respect to the

4

transfer by HAMILTON TAFT to Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. of

5

receivables totalling approximately $18.9 million and the issuance

6

of a promissory note in a similar amount from Dresdner

7

Enterprises, Inc. to HAMILTON TAFT.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

9

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

10

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

11

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

U

12

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

«

13

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

o-.~

14

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

-(

15

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

w

16

burdensome and oppressive.

-0If)

17

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

18

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

19

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

20

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

21

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

22

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

23

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

24

produced to plaintiff.

25

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

26

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

27

responds that he is not aware of any professional services

28

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in

llL.

0 ((

z

1/1 !oJ

U IL

m

II.

~

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

whi~h

- 48 -

Subject

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS' /-,

2

response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein

3

by reference.

4

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or

5

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to

6

the transfer by HAMILTON TAFT to Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. of

7

receivables totalling approximately $18.9 million and the issuance

8

of a promissory note in a similar amount from Dresdner

9

Enterprises, Inc. to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

10

reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited

11

to, those bates stamped PM007325-26j PM007410i PM007431: PM006975-

U

12

77: PM006255-59; PM002110-2114: PM00250B-2509; PM007003-7015;

4:

13

PMOOI027-1043.

.'
14

l-

LL

0 0: III kl

U

~

...o

z

m

J

j

15 !

w

16

0

-

(f)

INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Describe in detail YOUR investigation (including, without

17

limitation, all documents reviewed and physical inspections

18

performed) relating to and the factual basis for YOUR assessment

19

that the $6 million investment by Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. in

20

the Professional Investment Fund joint venture was worth in excess

21

of $18 million and that the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. note to

22

HAMILTON TAFT was therefore fully secured.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

24

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

25

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

26

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

27

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

28

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 49 -

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or 2

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

3

burdensome and oppressive.

4

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

5

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

6

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

7

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

8

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

9

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

10

inclUding from' PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

11

produced to plaintiff.

0: U

12

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

«

13

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

14

responds that he is not aware of any professional services

15

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which

16

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'

17

response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein

18

by reference.

19

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or

20

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to

21

the Professional Investment Fund or the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc.

22

note to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts reflected in PEAT

23

MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited to, those bates

24

stamped PM007325-26i PM007410i PM007431i PM006975-77i PM006255-59;

25

PM002110-2114i PM002508-2509i PM007003-7015j PMOOI027-1043j

26

PM003401-3496.

27

III

28

III

~

lL.

a z

m _l(

~

w 0

-

If)

The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

VOIGTS did no independent investigation and made

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 50 -

- --- .... __ ..-.. --

---.

~

...

~.

_

..

.,..

no "assessment ll relating to the PIF properties because that was 2

beyond the scope of the work PEAT MARWICK was engaged to perform.

3

4 5

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Describe with particularity (including, without limitation,

6

the value of) all assets of Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. in 1989

7

that could assure repayment of its $18 million debt to HAMILTON

8

TAFT, other than its investment in Professional Investment Fund.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

10

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

ItL

11

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

11

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

<{

13

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

~1t'

14

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

15

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

16

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

17

burdensome and oppressive.

18

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

19

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

20

ground that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive.

21

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

22

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

23

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

24

including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously

25

produced to plaintiff.

26

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

27

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

28

responds that he is not aware of any professional services

0

cr

U Z

m <{

l:

w

0

-(f)

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 51 -

Subject

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which

lLL

o Ir U

2

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'

3

response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein

4

by reference.

5

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or

6

entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to

7

the Professional Investment Fund or the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc.

8

note to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts reflected in PEAT

9

MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited to, those bates

10

stamped PM007325-26; PM007410; PM007431; PM00697S-77; PM006255-59;

11

PM002110-2114; PM002508-2509; PM007003-70l5; PM001027-l043;

12

PM003407-3496.

Z ~

m

Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any

13

In particular, at the time that PEAT HARWICK was performing

14

its work in connection with its review of HAMILTON TAFT's balance

15

sheet as of June 3D, 1989 (the "June 30 Balance Sheet tl ) , PEAT

w

16

MARWICK understood that Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. ("Oresdner n )

(fJ

17

was pledging the notes that it had acquired from Hamilton Taft &

18

company as collateral for Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft &

19

Company.

20

was collateralized by the interest of CCAJ Corporation in a joint

21

venture called Professional Investment Fund (IIPIF").

22

interests in approximately 100 partnerships which in turn owned

23

approximately 100 shopping centers located primarily in the

24

southern United states.

~

L

o

25

In addition, Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft & Company

PIF owned

In connection with its review of the June 30 Balance Sheet,

26

PEAT HARWICK was informed by Hamilton Taft & Company in writing

27

that there was sufficient collateral to conclude that the debt

28

from Dresdner to Hamilton Taft & Company would be repaid. DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 52 -

PEAT

HARWICK relied on the written representations of Hamilton Taft & 2

Company in connection with its review procedures and performed

3

additional analytical procedures which did not indicate a basis

4

for questioning the representations of Hamilton Taft & Company in

5

this regard.

6

connection with a review engagement, PEAT MARWICK did not conclude

7

or opine that Dresdner or CCAJ had sufficient assets to assure

8

repayment of its debt to Hamilton Taft & Company, and its review

9

report so reflects.

Because PEAT HARWICK's work was performed in

10 ~

~

11

U

lZ

state all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform an

13

acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT, including, without limitation,

14

the identities of all persons who worked on the engagement, all

15

communications regarding the nature and extent of the services to

w

16

be performed, the uses to which the audit report was to be put,

-m

17

and the persons to whom the audit report or the contents thereof

18

were intended to be or were actually communicated.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

~

~

z

w ~ u

,

~

0

INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

0

m ~

~

~ ~

~

0

20

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

21

overbroad and burdQnsome and seeks information which is neither

22

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

23

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

24

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

25

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

26

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

27

burdensome and oppressive.

28

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

53 -

,.

f

•

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the 2

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

3

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

4

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

5

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

6

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

7

produced to plaintiff.

8

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

9

to, and without waiving, these and his General objections, VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

10

responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform

11

this audit.

12

engagement are reflected in PEAT HARWICK's workpapers.


13

auditors on the engagement were as follows:

(;.1C ~

14

partner; Mark Austin, manager; Bob Teh, senior: Erin Murray, staff

15

assistant, and Lisa Rego, staff assistant.

16

bates stamped PM006629-32, defines the intended scope of the

17

engagement.

18

defines the scope of the services that were performed, directed to

19

the stockholders of HAMILTON TAFT and speaks for itself.

20

was told that the audit was being performed to establish a

21

benchmark for the date that HAMILTON TAFT was acquired by

22

ARMSTRONG.

23

external uses or external disclosures.

IIJ.. o ~ a:

U~

~

Z

gm

VOIGTS' professional services related to that The

Keith L. Voigts,

~"

~

~ ~ L~

Wi

o

in

The engagement letter,

The audit report, bates stamped PM007349-7357,

VOIGTS

VOIGTS had no knOWledge of any intended or actual

24

25 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

State all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform audits

27

of HAMILTON TAFT as of year-end 1989 and year-end 1990, including,

28

without limitation, the identities of all persons who worked on DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET 'OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 54 -

r'

these engagements, all communications regarding the nature and 2

extent of the services to be performed, the uses to which the

3

audit reports were to be put, and the persons to whom the audit

4

reports or the contents thereof were intended to be or were

5

actually communicated.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

7

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

8

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

9

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

10

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

llL. ~ o~

11

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

U~

12

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

13

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

14

burdensome and oppressive.

15

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

16

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

17

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

18

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

19

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

20

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

21

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

22

produced to plaintiff.

23

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

24

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

25

responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform

26

audit work.

27

engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers.

28

MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period

-

a:

z

~:

m:' ..... 0

~

~

oJ

~-

wr 0

-

(J)

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

VOIGTS' professional services related to that

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 55 -

PEAT

ended December 31, 1990. 2 II

been completed, at some point, PEAT HARWICK and the company

3 II

discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a

4 II

one-year period.

5 II

the engagement were as follows:

6 II

Austin, manager; Erin Murray and Kristin Conover, seniors and

7 II

Kelly Jensen, assistant.

8

which the audit reports were to be put, or any persons to whom the

11

9 II 10 II llL

o

a: u z c:( m ----1\ ~

~

Rather, because the 1989 audit had not

That audit was never completed.

The auditors on

Keith L. voigts, partner; Mark

VOIGTS had no knowledge of any uses to

audit reports or the contents thereof were intended to be or were actually commuhicated.

11 12 13

INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

state all facts regarding why YOUR audits of HAMILTON TAFT as

14

of year-end 1989 and year-end 1990 were never completed.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

w

16

(fJ

17

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

1811

relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

19 II

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

20 II

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

21 II

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

22 II

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

23 II

burdensome and oppressive.

2411

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

2S II

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

2611

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

27 II

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

2811

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

o

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

56 -

VOIGTS

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents, ,r--

Z

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

J

produced to plaintiff.

4

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

5

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

6

responds that PEAT HARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform

7

audit work.

8

engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers.

9

MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period

The burden of compiling the list of these SUbject

VOIGTS' professional services related to that PEAT

10

ended December· 31, 1990.

11

been completed, at some point, PEAT MARWICK and the company

U~

12

discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a

~~

13

one-year period.

14

reasons for not completing that audit are summarized in PEAT

15

HARWICK's workpapers including, but not limited to, those bates

16

stamped PM001424.

17

examination of the financial statements of HAMILTON TAFT as of and

18

for the years ended December 31, 1989 and December 31, 1990

19

because Hamilton Taft & Company did not supply PEAT MARWICK with

20

information PEAT HARWICK requested from Hamilton Taft & Company

21

and did not otherwise manifest an intent to proceed with the

22

completion of the audit.

23

MARWICK directly that it did not wish to proceed with the audit.

IIt.. O~ ((

z

m::' 0

or

.-1(

<{

~

J

~-

Wi

0

-Ul

Rather, because the 1989 audit had not

That audit was never completed.

PEAT HARWICK's

PEAT HARWICK could not complete its audit

Ultimately, HAMILTON TAFT informed PEAT

24 25 26

INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Describe all circumstances in which YOU knew of or allowed

27

the use of PEAT HARWICK's name by HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any

28

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG in connection with any DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 57 -

·. actual or proposed business transactions with third parties. 2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

)

4

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

5

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

6

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

8

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

9

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

10

burdensome and. oppressive.

VOIGTS further objects to this

l.L • O~

11

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

U~

12

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

<{ ~

13

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

14

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

«~

15

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

:l: Wi

16

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

-0

17

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

18

produced to plaintiff.

19

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

20

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

21

responds that he performed professional services as listed in

22

VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No.8.

23

uses for which HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities

24

utilized PEAT MARWICK's audit or review reports.

25

that ARMSTRONG was contemplating listing PEAT HARWICK as

26

Remington's auditor on a Remington brochure.

27

III

28

III

l-

t1

u

i;:

a: z lD

'"

It..

(1.-.~ ~

VOIGTS

:r.

ii

(J)

The burden of compiling the list of these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Subject

VOIGTS is unaware of the

VOIGTS was told

VOIGTS does not

- 58 -

recall seeing any such brochure. 2

See also VOIGTS' Response to

Interrogatory No. 41, which is incorporated herein by reference.

3 4

5

INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Describe all communications between YOU and any actual or

6

prospective client of HAMILTON TAFT regarding the business or

7

financial condition of HAMILTON TAFT.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

9

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

10

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

lL. ~ o~

11

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

U'::

12

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


13

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

..~

14

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

15

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

16

burdensome and oppressive.

17

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

18

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

19

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

20

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

21

n~cessitate

22

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

23

inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

24

produced to plaintiff.

25

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

26

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

27

responds that he had two brief conversations with people who

28

identified themselves as actual or prospective clients of HAMILTON

l-

a: Z

m~ "(


w~

0

-

U)

VOIGTS further objects to this

VOIGTS

the preparation or the making of a compilation,

The burden of compiling the list of these

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 59 -

SUbject

TAFT in which VOIGTS stated that HAMILTON TAFT paid its bills to 2

PEAT MARWICK on time and that, as far as he knew, ARMSTRONG had

3

never lied to him.

4

authorized to comment upon HAMILTON TAFT's financial situation.

5

One conversation was with a woman who said she had formerly worked

6

for a Big Eight accounting firm.

7

conversations were over the phone.

8

VOIGTS.

9

December 31, 1990.

When asked, VOIGTS stated that he was not

The other was with a man.

Both

Neither was initiated by

Both occurred sometime between May 1, 1989 and

10 l-

oll. ~lr

~

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Describe in detail YOUR involvement in the Advisory Board Lf

U~

12

<{:;

13

Directors of Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. and/or The Remington

14

Companies, Inc., including, without limitation, the nature of YOUR

~

15

role in connection with said Advisory Board, all meetings YOU

i:wi

16

attended, all topics and transactions or proposed transactions

Vi

17

discussed and all issues addressed at all meetings YOU attended r

18

and all circumstances surrounding YOUR participation in the

19

Advisory Board.

20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

z

~ lD ~ ..... ~:'i

r

o

...

o

21

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

22

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

23

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

24

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

25

VOIGTS further objects that this interrogatory is compound and

26

contains subparts.

27

to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

28

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

60 -

I

.... LL

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

2

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

3

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

4

ground that it is unduly burdensome and

5

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

6

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

7

abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

8

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

9

produced to plaintiff.

VOIGTS

opp~essive.

The burden of compiling the list of these

11

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

IZ

responds that he attended two or three Advisory Board meetings as

13

a guest, for the purpose of keeping generally familiar with what

~

14

the companies were doing so that PEAT HARWICK could complete an

~

15

audit efficiently when instructed to do so.

16

to comment on accounting issues should they arise.

17

not recall making any such comments.

18

involvement with the Advisory Board, except:

19

discussion of the zero coupon bond proposal and of Remington's

20

general business strategy.

21

transactions or proposed transactions being discussed.

22

recalls giving ARMSTRONG, at ARMSTRONG'S request, some names of

23

people who might be interested in sitting on the board, inclUding

24

Joe Sullivan.

~

U~

Z

«~ m..

o ._,11

VOIGTS further objects to

documents woula be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

a:

...

1

10

O~

~ ~

•

SUbject

~ 4

'(

~-

wi: 0

-

lJJ

VOIGTS also attended VOIGTS does

VOIGTS is aware of no other VOIGTS recalls some

VOIGTS does not recall any specific VOIGTS

25 26

27 28

INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Identify all fees (including amounts of fees, services for which fees were paid, and persons or entities for or on behalf of DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

61 -

1

whom services were performed) received by or paid to YOU by

2

HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG and all entities owned or controlled by

3

ARMSTRONG from January 1988 until the present.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

5

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

6

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

7

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

8

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

9

Specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for

.... _

10

information relating to events sUbsequent to VOIGTS' separation

olL. ~-

11

from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS declines to give any such

12

information.

~ ~:

13

extent it seeks information in the possession or control of

~

14

individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it

15

is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

Wi

16

this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

o U;

17

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

18

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

19

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

20

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

21

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

22

inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

23

produced to plaintiff.

24

documents would be the same for

25

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

26

responds as follows:

27

and the other entities owned by ARMSTRONG, not VOIGTS.

28

for PEAT MARWICK'S services were paid to PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS.

[r

U~ Z

~

m .1(

~ •

~

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the

Cl

or


I -

VOIGTS further objects to

VOIGTS

The burden of compiling the list of these plai~tiff

as for VOIGTS.

Subject

PEAT MARWICK was retained by HAMILTON TAFT

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

62 -

All fees

~7

PEAT MARWICK has previously produced to plaintiff its bills which ("

2

reflect its billings for professional services for HAMILTON TAFT,

J II

ARMSTRONG and any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

4 II

VOIGTS has produced documents which reflect all fees paid to him

5 II

personally, subsequent to VOIGTS' separation from PEAT HARWICK, by

6 II

other entities in which he believed ARMSTRONG had an interest.

7

8 II 9 II

INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Identify (inclUding, without limitation, name, current

10 II

address and telephone nUmber, position with PEAT HARWICK and

11

location of PEAT MARWICK office where employed) each employee,

12

partner and agent of PEAT MARWICK who worked on any PEAT MARWICK

<{

13

engagement with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or

o,....-l(

14

controlled by ARMSTRONG.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44:

w

16

VOIGTS objects to this

(fJ

17

tLL

o

~

a:: u z

..~ m IL

( <{ ~

o

18

i~terrogatory

as vague, ambiguous,

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither 11

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

19

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2011

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

21 II

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

2211

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

23

burdensome and oppressive.

2411

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

25 II

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

2611

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

27 II

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

28

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

63 -

VOIGTS

f.o

abstract, audit, or summary of or from

PEA~

MARWICK's documents,

,-

2

including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously

3

produced to plaintiff.

4

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

5

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

6

responds that PEAT HARWICK's Supplemental Response to Special

7

Interrogatory No. 44, which VOIGTS hereby incorporates by

8

reference, lists all the persons who may have participated in any

9

engagement.

The burden of compiling the list of these Subject

10 I-

l1..

~

O~

a:

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 45: As to each individual identified in YOUR response to

U~

12


13

Interrogatory No. 44, describe with particularity the work

-~JI 0~

14

performed or services provided for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or

15

entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, including the nature of

wi:

16

the engagement in connection with which such work or services were

-0

17

performed.

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

z

m~0

:<

Ci

«~ L

U)

~

19

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

20

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

21

relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

22

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

23

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

24

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

25

entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly

26

burdensome and oppressive.

27

interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to

28

summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

64 -

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

2

further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

3

necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,

4

abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,

5

including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

6

produced to plaintiff.

7

documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS.

8

to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

9

responds as follows:

10

The burden of compiling the list of these Subject

See PEAT MARWICK's Supplemental Response to

Interrogatory No. 44, incorporated herein by reference.

l-

lL -

0;:;

a:

u~

11 12

Z

INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Describe in detail the circumstances (including, without

~ ~ ~

13

~ --'~ ;::

14

limitation, the date and reasons) surrounding the termination,

"' ~ L -

15

withdrawal or resignation of VOIGTS as a partner and/or employee

w•

16

of PEAT MARWICK.

17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

~

m

~

~

o lil

18

VOIGTS Objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

19

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

20

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

21

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

22

VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

23

purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in

24

this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly

25

burdensome and oppressive.

26

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by

27

VOIGTS' right to privacy under the California Constitution or

28

seeks information contained in VOIGTS' personnel file in violation

VOIGTS further objects to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S Flh3~ SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

65 -

,

.

II

Il

of his right to privacy. (

"

Subject to, and without waiving these

2

and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds as follows:

3 II

MARWICK has previously produced to plaintiff Mr. VOIGTS' personnel

4

file.

1\

VOIGTS retired from PEAT HARWICK on May 1, 1991

PEAT

as

part of

5 II

PEAT MARWICK's streamlining program in which it significantly

6 II

reduced its partnership.

7 8 II

9 II

INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

Describe in detail all business relationships between YOU and

10 II

ARMSTRONG at all times up to and including the date hereof.

11

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

llL

o

0: U Z

13

overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

14

relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

15

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

w

16

Specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for

Ul

17

information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation

1811

from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS is therefore not supplying any such

19 II

information in this response.

2011

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession

~ ~ ~

lL

VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

12

m

... ~.-1J'i

-.t

I

a

21

II

VOIGTS further objects to this

or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

22

grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

VOIGTS

23 II

further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

2411

require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any

25 II

other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

2611

oppressive.

2711

interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

2811

compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's

VOIGTS further objects that responding to this

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S ~:~~~ SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 66 -

I

I

documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

... _ lL -

o~ lr

2

previously produced to plaintiff.

3

list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for

4

VOIGTS.

5

Objections, VOIGTS responds that he performed the professional

6

services identified in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 and

7

other responses herein.

8

relationships with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities

9

While VOIGTS' was a partner with PEAT MARWICK.

~

12

~ ~::

13

,.J( ;

14

U

Dated: November

m

5l,

1994

VOIGTS is not aware of any other business

Respectfully submitted, SIDEMAN & BANCROFT A Partnership Including

Z

~ ~

Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General

10

11

The burden of compiling the

Professional Corporations

c

~ ~

L _

wi:

15

By: DANIEL E'. KRITZ V

16

a

lO

Attorneys for Defendant KEITH L. VOIGTS

17 18 19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26 27

28

!I

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S ~'':::':-'':' ~BT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

67 -

-

'" I'

VERIFICATION (" -

2

I, Keith L. VOIGTS, am the defendant in this proceeding.

3

4 II

have read the foregoing DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL

5 II

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES and

6 II

know the contents thereof.

7 8

II

The same is true of my own knowledge,

except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and as to those natters, I believe them to be true.

9 10

I

declar~

under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

I-

u..

o

11

state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

u z

12

Executed this

«

13

--------------,

l<1

14

a:

~ !:I

"~

m

day of November,

1994, at

California.

~,-.­

~

IS ~

w o If)

I

KEITH L. VOIGTS

16

17

DEK:sa/mp:1992/P/94.0262

18

19 20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27 28

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S ~r~ST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

-

69 -

f,~ .....

~rJ.

. .- <..~

.

~~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY HANO

1 ,,--.

I, the undersigned, state that I am employed in the City and

z 3

County of San Francisco, State of california, in the office of a

4

member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service

5

was made; that I am over the age of eighteen years and not, a party

6

to the within action; that my business address is One Embarcadero

7

center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, California 94111; that on the

8

date set out below, I caused to be served true copies of the

9

attached document{s) DEFENOANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10 lLL

o

11

u

12

~ (J)

13

on the person(s) listed below, by hand-delivering said true copy

(; ~

14

to and at the offices ot the person(s)

a:

~

~

It.

z

~.

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGAT~RIES

15 ~

16

(/)

17

o

Richard L. Jaeger, Esq. Laura Grad, Esq. Feldman, Waldman & Kline Russ Building, 27th Floor 235 Montgomery street San Francisco, CA 94104

18 19 20 21

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

22

and correct.

23

day of

2.4

Executed at San Francisco, California, this

~~ l!J21J/

bLse rYl. /.¥2-2a
25 26

.f"

forth below:

Dale Barnes, Jr., Esq. Mary Huser, Esq. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen Three Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

I

W

s~t

,

19~.

?1~

©~~J!l-= [Signature]

2.7

28

t3d-4

II

rCJJ}L (0 q