Motion to Quash in SWALES JENNIFER DIANE v SWALES DAVID BRUCE JR| Trellis.Law

On June 19, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Swales Jennifer Diane, and Swales David Bruce Jr, for DIVORCE in the District Court of Cobb County.

Preview
ID# 2024-0041669-CV
2 EFILED IN OFFICE
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA
23104689
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY
MAR 25, 2024 06:35 PM
STATE OF GEORGIA
— Taylor, Ck ior _—————
Court
une j Georgia
JENNIFER DIANE SWALES,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
23-1-04689-69
VS.
(Assigned to the Honorable
DAVID BRUCE SWALES, JR., D. Victor Reynolds)

Defendant.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO LUMIN8 TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND INCORPORATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Non-party Lumin8 Transportation Technologies LLC (“Lumin8”) hereby submits its

Motion to Quash (the “Motion”) and, in support thereof, states as follows:

I Introduction

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff served PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

OF NON-PARTY, LUMIN8 TRANSPORTION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (the “Subpoena,”

which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1) on non-party Lumin8. The Subpoena seeks to compel the

production of documents from a non-party, the production of which would be unreasonable and

oppressive. The Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive because it seeks more documents from

Lumin8 than Defendant and because it seeks confidential and proprietary information from

Lumin8’. Additionally, the Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive because of the time and effort

that would be required for Lumin8 to gather the voluminous tranche of documents Plaintiff seeks.

Moreover, the documents requested are either duplicative of documents already produced by

4874-6893-2271.1
Defendant or not relevant to the issues in this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,

the Court should grant the Motion.!

Il. Legal Authority

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the

subject matter involved in the pending action[.]” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(1). The term “relevant

to the subject matter in the pending action” means “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably

could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” See Bowden

v. Med. Ctr., Inc., 297 Ga. 285, 291 (2015)

Upon written motion, before the time specified in a subpoena for compliance, the Court

may quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the Court may condition

the denial of the motion on the advancement of the reasonable cost of producing the relevant

evidence by the party who sought the subpoena. See O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23 (b)(1). Whether a

subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive “is tested by the peculiar facts arising from the subpoena

itself and other proper sources.” See Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions, LLC, 336 Ga. App.

411, 414 (2016) (internal citations omitted). Courts have also considered the status of a subpoena

recipient as a non-party that can weigh against disclosure in the undue burden inquiry. See Hannah

vy. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. et al, No. 8:2019cv00596 — Doc. 241 (M.D. Fla. Jun.

22, 2020).

' Representatives for Lumin8 attempted to contact counsel for Plaintiff to confer regarding its
objections to the Subpoena but did not receive any response. Undersigned counsel has also
attempted to contact counsel but has not yet been able to confer. Undersigned counsel intends to
continue her good faith efforts to narrow the scope of objections.

2
4874-6893-2271.1
Courts have also recognized that a motion to quash may be granted to quash may be granted

to protect the disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information. Jordan v. Comm'r,

Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2020). “[W]here parties seek discovery of

unprivileged but sensitive materials, the trial court must balance the requesting party’s specific

need for the material against the harm that would result by disclosure.” Bethune v. Bethune, 870

S.E.2d 827, 831-32 (2022). Relatedly, courts have found that it is unreasonable and oppressive to

require a non-party to produce all records and books showing account of a company. See

Kamensky v. Southern Oxygen Supply Co., 127 Ga. App. 343, 343-44 (1972).

Til. Argument

A The Subpoena Seeks More Documents From Lumin8 Than Defendant.

The documents sought by the Subpoena would place a greater burden on Lumin8 than is

placed on Defendant. On February 2, 2024, this Court filed its ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL & MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (the “Order,”

which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2). Item (2) of Exhibit A to the Order required Defendant to

produce the following documents for Lumin8: (i) Complete financial statements for 2020-2023

[do not need to produce Consolidated Financial Report December 31, 2022]; (ii) Current

ownership Table showing ownership of Carlson CS Holdco.; and (iii) Complete documentation of

Capital calls in 2022, including all correspondence, proof of payment, and any adjusted ownership

interest. The Subpoena now seeks to compel non-party Lumin8 to produce a far larger swath of

documents than Defendant was ordered to produce. (Compare Exs. | and 2.) For example, Topics

3 through 15 in the Subpoena seek documents from Lumin8 that Plaintiff has never even attempted

to obtain from Defendant. /d. It is unreasonable for Lumin8, a non-party with no interest in the

outcome of the present dispute to be compelled to produce documents and information that

4874-6893-2271.1
Plaintiff has not tried to obtain from Defendant. Moreover, the broad scope of discovery sought

by Plaintiff would be highly oppressive for Lumin8 to produce. Accordingly, the Motion should

be granted pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23 (b)(1).

B The Subpoena Seeks Confidential Information from Lumin8.

Many of the Subpoena topics require Lumin8 to produce confidential and proprietary

information. For example, Topic 1 seeks “[c]omplete financial statements for Lumin8 from 2020-

2023 and 2024 to date (do not need to reproduce the Consolidated Financial Report for 12/31/22).”

Ex. 1, § 1. Disclosure of such financial information has been found to be unreasonable and

oppressive. See Kamensky v. Southern Oxygen Supply Co., 127 Ga. App. 343, 343-44 (Ga. Ct.

App. 1972). For this reason alone, the Motion should be granted.

In addition to detailed financial information, the Subpoena seeks all communications sent

by a Lumin8 representative to Defendant or which Defendant was copied on. See id., J 4.

Imposing a requirement for a non-party to disclose such a vast amount of communications would

not only be unreasonable and oppressive but would also undoubtedly require disclosure of

confidential business information. Similarly, Topic 13 of the Subpoena seeks all documents ever

executed by Defendant while working for Lumin8. /d., § 13. Such disclosure would certainly

require Lumin8 to divulge confidential information. Lumin8 understands that a protective order

has recently been entered in this case. However, Lumin8, which is not a party to the litigation or

a signatory to the confidentiality order, would not have standing to enforce this order should the

parties not comply. Therefore, Lumin8 should not be required to disclose its confidential

information to third parties in a lawsuit that it is not a party to. Accordingly, the Motion should

be granted to protect Lumin8’s proprietary and confidential information from being disclosed

4874-6893-2271.1
because Lumin8’s interest in protecting this information from disclosure far outweighs any

probative value this information could have.

Cc The Subpoena Topics Are Unreasonable, Oppressive and Duplicative.

In addition to the fact that each of the topics seek information that is confidential, each of

the Subpoena topics are unreasonably overbroad, oppressive, and unlikely to lead to the discovery

of relevant evidence. Topic 1 seeks detailed financial information from Lumin8 that is overbroad

and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Despite the overbreadth and

irrelevance of this topic, Lumin8 will produce a limited amount of relevant financial information

sought by Topic 1.2 However, for the reasons explained herein, Lumin8 objects to producing any

documents responsive to Topics 2 through 15.

Topic 2 seeks “[e]vidence of all expense reimbursements requested by David Swales and

evidence of all expense reimbursements paid to David Swales during the course of his

employment.” Ex. 1., § 2. Defendant travels virtually every week single week, and each time

Defendant travels he incurs expenses which require reimbursement. For Lumin8 to comply with

this Topic, it would need to literally gather thousands of documents spanning four years of

Defendant’s travel. Such an undertaking for a non-party is both unreasonable and oppressive.?

Topic 3 seeks “[a]ll cellular phone records, including but not limited to, complete billing

statements, call logs, and text messages pertaining to cellular devices and numbers assigned to

David Swales.” /d., 3. The usage of all phones issued to Lumin8 representatives is consolidated

? Upon information and belief, LUMIN8_000001-000019 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests in the Subpoena. Lumin8 is also producing a limited
amount of additional financial documents. See LUMIN8_000441-000506.

3 Upon information and belief, LUMIN8_000020-000050 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests in the Subpoena.

5
4874-6893-2271.1
ina single bill. These bills do not include call logs, or text messages. Therefore, for Lumin8 to

comply with the Subpoena, it would need to attempt to gain access to these records from its cellular

provider and comb through copious amounts of irrelevant call logs and text messages that are not

likely to lead to the discovery of any relevant evidence. Placing such a burden on Lumin8, a party

with no interest in the outcome of the present suit, would be highly unreasonable and oppressive.

Topic 4 seeks “[a]ll communications, whether computer generated or otherwise, by and

between (1) Lumin8 and any agent or representative thereof and David Swales or to which David

Swales was copied and (2) WLCW Holdings, LLC and any agent or representative thereof and

David Swales or to which David Swales was copied. Ex. 1, § 4 (emphasis added). Notably, there

is no time limit on this topic. For Lumin8 to comply with Topic 4, it would have to gather not

only all Lumin8 emails between Defendant and any agent or representative at his employer,

Lumin8, but also all emails that Defendant was copied on. Requiring Lumin8 to produce every

email that has ever been sent to Defendant by a Lumin8 agent or representative, or that Defendant

was ever copied on is perhaps the textbook definition of “unreasonable and oppressive.”

Moreover, the production of these emails would likely divulge sensitive Lumin8 information,

while almost certainly failing to lead to a single relevant piece of evidence.

Similarly, Topic 5 seeks “all communications whether computer generated or otherwise,

by and between Lumin8 and/or WLCW Holdings, LLC and any agent or representative of Carlos

CS HoldCo., Inc. and any agent or representative thereof.” Ex. 1,5. As with Topic 4, there is

no time limit for this topic. Therefore, for Lumin8 to comply with Topic 5, it would need to gather

and produce all communications any representative of Lumin8 or WLCW Holdings, LLC ever had

with any representative of Carlos CS HoldCo., Inc. at any time. Gathering such a vast scope of

4874-6893-2271.1
communications, the majority of which will surely have no bearing on the issues in this case, is

unreasonable and would be oppressively expensive and time consuming.

Topic 6 seeks “[t]he personnel record for David Swales, including but not limited to all

reports, notes, summaries, reprimands, performance improvement plans, and employment

contract(s).” Jd., § 6. Essentially, this Topic demands Lumin8 search for, gather, and produce

every document in its possession related to Defendant—a Lumin8 employee. Tasking Lumin8

employees with combing through every document related to Defendant, including any notes that

may relate to Defendant, is shockingly overbroad and oppressive. Lumin8 is not a party to this

lawsuit and should not be expected to conduct such a search simply because one of its employees

is a party to a divorce proceeding.’

Topic 7 seeks “[e]vidence of all benefits provided to David Swales and/or any member of

his family.” Ex. 1,97. As an initial matter, it is unclear to Lumin8 what is meant by “benefits”

“evidence” thereof. Leaving Lumin8 to guess what exactly Plaintiff is attempting to obtain is

unreasonable. Moreover, Topic 7 is not limited to a certain period of time. Requiring Lumin8 to

review documents going back years to deduce “evidence of all benefits provided to David Swales

and/or any member of his family” is both unreasonable and oppressive, especially since upon

information and belief Defendant has already produced all documents responsive to this Topic in

Lumin8’s possession.>

4 Upon information and belief, LUMIN8 000051-000062 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests contained in the Subpoena.

5 Upon information and belief, LUMIN8_000073-000110 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests contained in the Subpoena.

7
4874-6893-2271.1
Topic 8 seeks “[e]vidence of any interest David Swales and/or Carlson CS HoldCo., Inc.

holds in Lumin8.” /d., § 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already produced all

documents responsive to this Topic.° Therefore, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require

Lumin8, a non-party, to gather and produce duplicative documents already in Plaintiffs

possession,

Topic 9 seeks “[a]ll Payroll records for David Swales during his employment, including

W-2s.” Id., 4 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already produced all documents

responsive to this Topic.’ Therefore, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require Lumin8,

a non-party, to gather and produce duplicative documents already in Plaintiff's possession.

Topic 10 seeks “evidence of all other payments issued to David Swales as an employee.”

Id.,§ 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already produced all documents responsive

to this Topic. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require Lumin8, a non-party,

to gather and produce duplicative documents already in Plaintiffs possession.

Topic 11 seeks “all agreements by and between Lumin8 and David Swales and/or Carlson

CS HoldCo., Inc.” /d., § 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already produced all

documents responsive to this Topic. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require

Lumin8, a non-party, to gather and produce duplicative documents already in Plaintiffs

possession,

© Upon information and belief, LUMIN8_000111-000354 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests contained in the Subpoena.

7 Upon information and belief, LUMIN8_000355-000438 have already been produced in this
litigation and are responsive to the requests contained in the Subpoena.

8
4874-6893-2271.1
Topic 12 seeks “all agreements by and between WLCW Holdings, LLC and David Swales

and/or Carlson CS HoldCo., Inc.” Ex. 1, 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already

produced all documents responsive to this Topic. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and

oppressive to require Lumin8, a non-party, to gather and produce duplicative documents already

in Plaintiff's possession.

Topic 13 seeks “all documents executed by David Swales.” /d., § 13. Defendant is an

officer of Lumin8 and is therefore authorized to execute agreements on behalf of the company.

Therefore, the sheer volume of documents Lumin8 would be required to gather, review, and

produce to comply with this topic of the Subpoena is on its face unreasonable and oppressive. To

make matters worse, even if Lumin8 were to comply with this topic, there is no reasonable basis

to believe that such compliance would result in the divulgence of any relevant material that has

not already been produced by Defendant.

Topic 14 seeks “the final Closing Statement for the July 2020 purchase of Carlson

Construction Services, LLC.” Jd., § 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already

produced all documents responsive to this Topic. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and

oppressive to require Lumin8, a non-party, to gather and produce duplicative documents already

in Plaintiff's possession.

Topic 15 seeks “evidence of all payments made to David Swales and/or Carlson CS

HoldCo, Inc. in relation to the July 2020 purchase of Carlson Construction Services, LLC.” /d.,

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant has already produced all documents responsive to this

Topic. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require Lumin8, a non-party, to

gather and produce duplicative documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Accordingly, the

Court should grant the Motion.

4874-6893-2271.1
Iv. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, Lumin8 respectfully asks that the Court grant the Motion

and quash the subpoena issued by Plaintiff on March 7, 2024.

Dated this 25th day of March, 2024.

KUTAK ROCK LLP

4s/ Elizabeth L. Fite
Elizabeth L. Fite, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 142347
elizabeth. fite@kutakrock.con
Kutak Rock LLP
Suite 900
3424 Peachtree Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30326
(404) 222-4600 (Telephone)
(404) 222-4654 (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Non-party Lumin8 Transportation
Technologies LLC

10
4874-6893-2271.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served a copy of the within and foregoing MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA TO LUMIN8 TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND

INCORPORATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF in the above-styled action by e-filing it with

the Clerk of Court via Peach Court, which will automatically serve all parties of record.

Dated this 25" day of March, 2024.

ds/ Elizabeth L. Fite
Elizabeth L. Fite, Esq.

4874-6893-2271.1
Exhibit |
©
tHe GLEKLEN
LAW FIRM
4930 East Jones Bridge Road
Suite 225
Peachtree Comers, GA 30092
Si
P: 678-234-0444 | F: 678-236-0445
Adam Gleklen, Esq.
SusanA. Hurst, Esq. - OF Counsel
Pamela J. Gray, Esq. ~ Of Counsel

arch 7, 2024

VIA FEDEX
Luming Tr asportation Technologies, LLC
c/o Registered Agent: Registered Agent Solutions, Inc
900 Old Roswell Lakes Parkway, Ste. 310
Roswell, GA 30076

Re er Diane ales Da d Bru Swale fe
perior Court of Cobb Coun , CAT a3 1-04689

Dear Sir/ Ma’am

As you know, our office represents Ms, Jennifer Swales/ Petitioner in the above-
referenced divorce matter, Respondent, Mr. David Swales, is represented by Stephen C
Steele, Esq. of Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLI

We previously served a Subpoena for Deposition with an attached Exhibit “A”,
however, as a result of further review, that Exhibit was been amended, Aco ordingl
please find enclosed a Subpoena for Deposition, in de. “which
is being served upon you in connection with the abe eferen ‘ed matter. A opy of the
Subpoena with amended Exhibit “ A” has been served upon all parties to this action
Unie 3S. a written > 1 objection is filed with the url the documents requested he
Arn nded Exhibit “ A” must be provided to_our office at the time of your scheduled
n. If no abjection is filed by Respondent's counsel, should you wish to avoid
app ring at the deposition schedul led for 1:30 p.m. on Friday, March 29, 2024 please
provide all the requested documents no later than Monday, March 25, 2024, Por your
CONVETUENICE, you may provide the documents via PDF to my office via email to
and . We kindly ask that y mu also
coniphete and return the enclosed Declarations of Records Custodian Pursuant to
§24-9-904,

www.gleklenlaw.com
Sivale Swales
March 2024
>
Page |{
In the event you are unable to provide the requested documents on or before
March 25, 2024, pl ase bring the requested items with you to the deposition scheduled
for 1:30 p.m, on Friday, March 29, 2024.

We anticipate your cooperation and look forward to receiving the requested
items.

Very truly yours,
/sf Adam M. Gleklen
Adam M. Gleklen, Fsq.
MG/ana
closures: as stated
Jennifer Diane Swales (via email)
Pam J. Gray, Esq. (via email)
Stephen C. Steele, Esq. (via email)
iN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

TO: CIVIL ACTION NO. O89
eg Ags in Jennifer Diane Swales
ake 0 ¥
Ros Dayid Bruce Swales, Jr.

SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AT A DEPOSITION

Pursuant to the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30 and 9-11-45, you are hereby required to

be and appear at _ The Gleklen Law mH LLC,
Labehes3930
2 t Jones Bridge Road, S ite 225, Peachtree
Corner: orgia 30092 at 1:30 o’elock p.m. on the 29% day of March, 2024, to give your

deposition upon oral examination in the case pending in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Case

No. 23-1-04689
oh . and te bring with you the following:

SEE AMENDED EXHIBIT “A,” ATTACHED HERETO.

Herein fail not, under penalty of law

Witnes: et or Ry lds, Judge of said Court,

this the 7" day of March, 2024.

Inquiries should be directed to: i -
ALD GL LEN
Georg! Bar N 797 0
72]
Attorney
for Petitioner’ Wife
ie

phor {6 6-0444
Attorn. for Petitioner/ Wife
Amended EXHIBIT “A”

Jennifer Diane Swales v. David Bruce Swales, Jr.
Superior Court of Cobb County
CA 2 ~1-04689 nce rine a
Subpoena for Deposition Document Request

L IMIN 8 TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Please furnish us with the following information. This is our initial document request. As our
anal S progresses. additional documents may be requested. If the information does not exist.
please state.

i
Complete financial statements for Lumin§ from 2020-20 le5 3 and 2024 to date (do not need
3
to reproduce the Consolidated Financial Report for 1 263 1/22).
5
oe

‘vidence of ail expense reimbursements requested by David Swales and evidence of all
expense reimbursements paid to David Swales during the course of his employment.

3,
All cellular phone records, including but not limited to, complete billing statements, call
logs, and text messages pertaining to cellular devices and numbers assigned to David Swales.

All communication: whether computer generated or otherwise, by and between (1)
Lunim& and any agent or repr entative thereof and David Swales or to which David Swales was
copied and (2) WLCW Holdings, LLC and any agent or representative thereof and David Swales
or to which David Swales was copied.

To th he extent not previously produced, all communications, whether computer generated
or otherwi by and between Lunin8 and/or WLCW Holdings, LLC and any agent or
representative thereof and Carlson CS HoldCo., Inc. and any agent or representative thereof.

6.
The personnel record for David Swales. including but not limited to all reports, notes,
summaries, reprimands, performance improvement plans, and employment contract(s).
5
7

Evidence of all benefits provided to David Swales and/or any member of his family.
8.
Evidence of any interest David Swales and/or Carlson CS HoldCo., Ine. holds in Lumin8
Jennifer Diane :
Superior Court of Cobb Count on File 23-1-04689
Exhibit “Yo Subpoena to Livi Transpartation Technolo Lic
Page |
9.
>
All Payroll records for David Swales during his employment, including W
10.

To the extent not previously produced, evidence of all other payments issued to David
Swales as an employee.

il
Yo the extent not previously produced, all agreements by and between Lumin8 and David
Swales and/or Carlson CS HoldCo., Inc.

12.

To the extent not previously produced, all agreements by y and between WLCW Holdings.
LLC and David Swales and/or Carlson CS HoldCo., Inc.
+
I 3
To the extent not previously produced, all documents executed by David Swales.
14.

To the extent not previow y produced. the final Closing Statement for the July 2020
purchase of Carlson Construction Services, LLC.
1s$
<

To the extent not previously produced, evidence of all payments made to David Swales
and/or Carlson CS HoldCo, Inc. in relation to the July 2020 purchase of Carlson Construction
Services, LLC,

nnifer Dia ales ¥ avid Bruce Swale:
Saperior ut of Cobb County, Ch 1 Action 2 No. ~O4689
Exhibit 4° to Subpoena to Lumind Transportation Tee Anologies, LI
Page 2
EN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

JENNIFER DIA} SWALES.

Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 23-1-04689-69
Vv

DAVID BRUCE SWALES. JR.,

Respondent.
oo nner )

DECLARATION OF RECORDS CUSTODIAN PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. §24-9-902

COMES NOW, a 5 Record Custodian for LUMINS
TRANSPORTATION TECH OLOGIE S, LLC and responds to Petitioner's Subpoena for
Production of Evidence at a Deposition to Non-Party Lumin8 Transporiation Technologies,
LLC, With Amended Exhibit “A” served pursuant to O.C.G.A, § 24-13-23, $ set forth herein:
The unde igned is the custodian or other qualified person who certifies that the records
produced in response to this subpoena are true and accurate copies of records:
(a) made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from

information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of such matters:
(b) kept in the court of the regularly conducted activity; and
(c) made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

Please indicate the appropriate response below:

( ) Copies of the requested materials have been attached
{ ) The materials requested will be produced at the designated email address.
( ) The materials requested will be produced at the designated mailing address.
) The materials requested do not exist.

[See Next Page for Signature]

Jenni ne Swales vy, DavidBr 8.34,
Superier Court Cobb Co Civil ion fle No. 689-69
Declarations of Records Custodian Pursuant ta OCGA, 824-9902
Page tof 2
The undersigned hereby declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct, this _ day of 2024.

soentinan
Custod an of Records
LUMINS8 TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Name:

Title: ee nee

Sworn to and subseribed before me
this _ day of _ se » 2024.

si vi povniinpenngemnsingntntntmnnpit
Jotary Public
My Commission Expires:

Jennifer f Swales v. David Bruce Suv
Supe: or Court of Col anty, Civil Action Fi le No, 4689-59
Declarations of Records Custodian Pursiant to OCG. 9-GU?
Page 2 of 2
& 3 Sey BRO
ae Bag 2
s Ome
Se item: se&
By
eee Eze
moe A ak
Dn fin2
S
“mT Seine ere
2 4 bin 3a os Soko
Zooe
Hag ®2
a Ze
2
=&
s
ea Pa 8
Pa x2 or &
mi =
9we een =
&
=o
az
wo
om
ete o mo:
Or ow
Ss
as
=i:
=e 2 oe
oe
pee
ENS eras =e B23
Ho pS, oc @&
+ 0D ee: = Soe
tA
& oY &B e oi

a6
B &BERoo
BeaSSy

f
Bea zBse

[rm].
&
&2
Be
Ow
mo Seaton
oP SRACBSIEGAES

te ating § ie Fase?
con NEE COPY - PLEASE PLACE IN FRONT OF POUCH
: a a pagihe iconret 0"@
2 ace abst® Bapping pou and ate Dye shipment

Use of this systen onstitutes your egreement to the service conditions in the current Fed&x Service Guide. available on
fedex.com. FedEx will not be responsivie for any Claim in excess of $100 per package, whether thre result Joss, damage,
delay, non-delivery, misdeli ey 1 misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document
your actual loss and file a timely claim, Limitations found in the current FedEx Servic Guide apply. Your right te recover from
Fedex for any loss, including intrinsic vatue of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and
other forms of damage whether direct, incidental, conse tial, or special is limited to the greatier of $200 « or theauthorzed
declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented loss. Maximum for items of extraordinary value ss $1,000. e.g.
Jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instrements and oth e items listed in our Service Guide, Written claims must be filed
within strict time linits, see current FedEx Service Guide,
Exhibit 2
ID# 2024-0015682-CV
@ EFILED IN OFFICE
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA.
23104689
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA FEB 02, 2 41:15 AM
>

JENNIFER DIANE SWALES, ‘Gann

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
23-1-04689-69
vs.
(Assigned to the Honorable
DAVID BRUCE SWALES, JR., D. Victor Reynolds)

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
& MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Plaintiff, Jennifer Diane Swales, represented by her counsel, Adam M. Gleklen of The

Gleklen Law Firm, LLC and Defendant David Bruce Swales, Jr., represented by his counsel,

Stephen Steele, of Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, appeared on February 1, 2024, on

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed October 23, 2024 and Motion to Extend Discovery filed December

11, 2024. This Court, having reviewed the written submissions from both parties and having heard

oral arguments presented by each counsel, hereby FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

2. Defendant David Swales shall produce within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order all

documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to the categories and requests

listed on the attached Exhibit “A”.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall, within seven (7) days of entry of this Order,

state next to each requested document on Exhibit “A” if he (a) does not have possession,

custody or control of any responsive document OR (b) he is producing a responsive document

and, if so, describe or identify the document. If Defendant believes a responsive document

fer i al v Vv’
Superior Court of Cobb County; a 23-1-04689-69
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel & Motion to Extend Discovery
Page | of 4
has been previously produced, then he shall either state same and produce it again or otherwise

describe it with sufficient particularity that counsel for Petitioner may locate same, including

the date of Defendant's prior production and bate stamp number.

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is hereby extended through

Friday, March 29, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. The parties and counsel are ORDERED to attend

mediation with an agreed upon neutral on or before May 17, 2024.

The issue of Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to

O.C.G.A. 9-11-37 is hereby reserved until further Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED, tnis2AY day of February, 2024,
af ua Vou foe
ion. D. Victor Reynglds
Superior Court of Cobb County

Prepared and presented by (with edits by the Court):
/s/Adam M. Gleklen
Adam M. Gleklen
Georgia State Bar No. 297270
Attorney for Respondent/Wife

Jennifer Diane Swales v David Bruce Swales. Jr.
Superior Court of Cobb County; CAFN: 23-1-04689-69
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel & Motion to Extend Discovery
Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT “A”
SWALES vy. SWAL -D E. D IM DAVID SWALE:
(1) [RPD #58] - The Operating Agreement for Carlson CS HoldCo.
(2) [RPD #58] - The following documents for Lumin8 Transportation Technologies:
a. Complete financial statements 2020 — 2023 [do not need to produce Consolidated
Financial Report December 31, 2022]
Current ownership capital table showing ownership of Carlson CS HoldCo
Complete documentation of capital calls in 2022 including all correspondence,
proof of payment and any adjusted ownership interest
G) [RPD #27] - Statements from September 30, 2023, to current for all personal bank
accounts (include evidence of deposits and checks).

@) [RPD #27] - The 4/7/22 bank statement for Servis 1 x4491 accounts (include evidence
of deposits and checks).
(5) [RPD #27] - Monthly statements for Servis 1° bank account, x1373 from January 2020
to present.

© [RPD #27] - Monthly statements for Servis 1% bank account, x3138 from January 2020
to present.
a. Do not need to produce statements for 5/1/23-8/31/23 and 12/29/23.
?) [RPD #27] - Monthly account statements for Truxton Securities x2621 from January
2020 to present. [Do not need to produce 12/31/22 statement]
(8) [RPD #27] - Most recent statements for the children’s 529 accounts.
(9) [RPD #27] - Most current statement Truxton x3697.
(10) [RPD #49] - Most current statement for mortgage on commercial building.
(11) (RPD #32] - Documents establ

Case Info

Judge

DV REYNOLDS Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 25, 2024

Case Filing Date

June 19, 2023

County

Parties

ADAMS WILLIAM Other
AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SVCS CO Other
BRANCH DAN Other
FITE,ELIZABETH L Attorney
GLEKLEN,ADAM M Attorney
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Other
LUMIN8 TRANSPORTATION TECH LLC Other
MILLER ALEXANDRE S Other
SERVIS FIRST BANK INC Other
STEELE,STEPHEN C Attorney
SWALES DAVID BRUCE JR Defendant
SWALES JENNIFER DIANE Plaintiff
John Collar Attorney
Jeffrey Reilly Attorney
Whitney Mauk Attorney
Diane Cherry Attorney
Angela Brown Attorney
Susan Hurst Attorney
Pamela Gray Attorney
Susan Alison Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: SWALES JENNIFER DIANE v SWALES DAVID BRUCE JR

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties