Voigts' Rogs

DAVID P.
BANCROFT (5B #052106)

GEORGE D. NIESPOLO (Sa 1072107)
2 DANIEL E. KRITZ (58 #148714)
SIDEMAN & BANCROFT RECEIVED
) A Partnership Including
3
Professional Corporations NOV 0 9 1994
4 Eighth Floor
One Embarcadero Center ~~ waIdlTJan &. Kine
5 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 392-1960
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 KEITH L. VOIGTS
8
9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
..
r 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
r- ~
lJ..';
11
o~
(!~
12 FREDERICK S. WYLE, as Trustee in )
u~ Bankruptcy of HAMILTON TAFT & ) Case No. 950522
Z~
COMPANY, )
~ ~= 13
~ m.~ )
..o ~ .. 14 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
~ v. ) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF
15
) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
16 KPMG PEAT MARWICK, a general )
partnership; KEITH L. VOIGTS; )
17 and DOES ONE through TWENTY, )
inclusive, )
18 )
Defendants. )
19 ----------------)
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:

- - - ----I--.o=.r'='-6
26 III
;... '.'j' 27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORTF.~ -, -
GENERAL STATEMENT
2 1. 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. VOIGTS reserves the right to
6 supplement these responses as his investigation and discovery
7 proceeds.
8 2. 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 3. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
11
0
£r
U 12 they are overbroad, unduly b~rdensorne and oppressive, and seek
Z
...
III
<{ 13 information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of
...'d rIl
II.
o .Y 14 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
~
«
..J
15 admissible evidence .
.l.
w 16 4. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
0
-
If) 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.
20 5. 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.
23 6. 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
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
5 INTERROGATORIES
6 INTERROGATORY NO.1:
7 Identify all services performed by defendant VOIGTS for or on
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. (For purposes

...lL.
II of these interrogatories, "HAMILTON TAFT" means Hamilton Taft &
0
a: Co.; "ARMSTRONG" means Connie C. Armstrong, Jr.; "PEAT MARWICK"
u 12
z
~ ci 13 means KPMG Peat Marwicki and "YOU/YOUR/YOURSELF" and "VOIGTS"
u
j;: m
...o -.. means Keith L. Voigts •
;
14
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:
15
~
w 16 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
0
- 17 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
U)
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. VOIGTS further objects to this
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. SUbject to,
27 and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

28 III
responds as follows: None while VOIGTS was a partner at PEAT
2 MARWICK.
5 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.
10 Not applicable.
~
1.L
11
0
a: INTERROGATORY NO.3:
u 12
z
Ul
w <{ 13 Describe in detail the substance of any advice or other
u
;;: m
l&.
0 .-'
14 services (including, without limitation, review, analysis,
~
~
15 investigation and discussion) provided by YOU to HAMILTON TAFT,
2: ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG
w 16
0
-(J) 17 concerning permissible uses of funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT
18 client tax deposits.
20 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
21 as to the use of the word "permissible. 1t

VOIGTS further objects
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. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory
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. VOIGTS further objects to

_ " .. 1
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
3 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. Subject to
4 and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
5 responds as follows: VOIGTS was not engaged to and did not
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. PEAT HARWICK did
9 provide limited analyses of section 7501 of the Internal Revenue
10 Code, and its analyses is summarized in the work papers, bates

....
u.. numbered PM006761-62.
11
0
n:
U 12
z INTERROGATORY NO.4:
~
u
« 13
i: lD
... Describe in detail all investigation, research, analysis or
0_". 14
~
~,
15 other steps taken by YOU to satisfy YOURSELF that the use of
.l.
w 16 HAMILTON TAFT funds from client tax deposits to fund investments
0
-
(J) 17 and acquisitions by ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by
18 ARMSTRONG was permissible.
21 as to the use of tr~ word "permissible." VOIGTS further objects
22 to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks
25 admissible evidence. VOIGTS further Objects to this interrogatory

.....U
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
3 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. Subject to
4 and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
5 responds as follows: See Voigts Response to Special Interrogatory
6 No.3, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition,
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 TAFT funds
10 from client tax deposits to fund investments and acquisitions by

l-
1.1..
11 ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG was
a
rr permissible.
u 12
z
«
[J)
13
1( 14 INTERROGATORY NO.5:
15 Identify all loans, acquisitions, investments and other

~
:2: transactions entered into by HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any
w 16
0
-
(f) 17 entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG that YOU knew or
18 understood were funded, directly or indirectly, with HAMILTON TAFT
19 funds.
21 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
22 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither

- .... :./
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
3 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
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. The burden of compiling the list of these
9 documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
10 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
l-
lL. responds as follows: During the course of professional services,
11
0
0:
U 12 VOIGTS was told that, based on review of the financial statements
Z
til
\oJ 4: 13 of HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies, funds were
U
~
m
IL
0 t(J 14 transferred between HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies.
~
15 VOIGTS' understanding was that the early investments -- like PIF,
I
w 16 weir Bros. and River City Fair -- were funded with HAMILTON TAFT
0
- 17 funds. with respect to those of the later investments of which
Ul
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. VOIGTS was informed and believed that HAMILTON TAFT was
23 acting in accordance with the advice of its counsel and was making
24 its own determinations as to the use of its funds. HAMILTON TAFT
25 did not seek PEAT MARWICK's or VOIGTS' advice in connection with
26 such determinations.
27 III
28 III
INTERROGATORY NO.6:
2 Describe in detail all facts disclosed to YOU or known by YOU
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.
9 as to the words "improper" and "imprudent." VOIGTS also objects
10 that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."

l-
LL VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
0 11
((
U 12 burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
Z
(JI
w <i 13 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
u
10.
m
... lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further
0
t<J 14
~
IS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
I in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than
w 16
0
-
(J) 17 VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.
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. VOIGTS further objects that responding
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. The burden of
26 compiling the list of these documents would be the same for
27 plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these
28 and his General objections, VOIGTS responds as follows: VOIGTS is

unable to fUlly respond to this interrogatory as discovery is
2 ongoing and the interrogatory is too vague. However, VOIGTS was
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. If In fact, plaintiff admits in
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. 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
0
OC
U 12 TAFT, an entity plaintiff alleges was owned or controlled by
z
~ 13 ARMSTRONG. In addition, HAMILTON TAFT's attorneys informed PEAT
m
-~ 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
.
I was a business decision for HAMILTON TAFT to make. PEAT MARWICK
w 16
0
-
m 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.
20
22 state all facts· known by YOU between January 1988 and
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
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0. 7:
3 as to the word "diversion." VOIGTS further objects to this
4 interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks
7 admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

~
~
11 this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
0
rr summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
U 12
z
~ 13 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
m
.~ 14 further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

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

w 16
0
-
m 17 including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
19 documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
21 responds as follows: VOIGTS was aware of no "diversion" of
22 HAMILTON TAFT's client tax deposits.
23
25 Oescribe each of the services performed by YOU at any time
26 between January 1988 and the present for ARMSTRONG andlor any
27 entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
28 III
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY ~O. 8:
6 specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for
7 information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation
8 from PEAT MARWICK. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

I-
lJ..
0
0: this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
U 12
Z
III
w et 13 summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
~
..... ID
o .~ 14 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
~
•
.J
""-
i: necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
w 16
0
-
(f) 17 abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
22 responds as follows: VOIGTS participated in PEAT MARWICK's
23 performance of the following services for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG
24 or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG:
25 1. Acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT's balance sheet as of
26 March 31, 1989.
27 2. Review of HAMILTON TAFT'S balance sheet as of June 30,
28 1989.

-_.'
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. Uncompleted audit of Chase Development Corp. financial
8 statements.
9 6. Preparation or advice related to the following tax
10 returns: Chase Development Co. Form 1120 for

I-
lJ.. YE 9/30/87, Dreyfus Mortgage 1989, Dresdner capital
11
o
a: 1989, CCAJ, Inc. 1989, Dresdner Petroleum 1989, Dresdne~
u 12
z
t:l « 13 Investments Inc. 1989, Remington Co. 1986, Dresdner
~ m
a'" .. 14 Enterprises 1987, Dresdner Enterprises 198B, Hamilton
J
..
0(
15 Taft 1989, Suisse Texas Inc. 1989, Chase-Pulee Joint

~
L venture 1989, Chase Development 1986, RCF Inc. or
w 16
o
17 ARMSTRONG's personal returns.
lJ)
18 7. Advice related to the accounting theory applicable to a
19 proposed real estate investment plan involving zero
20 coupon bonds.
21 8. Attendance as a guest at some Remington Advisory Board
22 meetings.
23 9. Advice related to tax and accounting implications of
24 restructuring.
25 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
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

r-
LL to set up Chenal's accounts, perform bookkeeping functions,
11
0
cr supervise Chenal's outside payroll service, coordinate payroll for
U 12
Z
<{ 13 a separate entity owned by ARMSTRONG, and assist in the
m
~I( 14 development of business plans primarily to locate investment
15 opportunities. Subsequently, as a principal and associate in

.....
~
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. Prior to ARMSTRONG'S acquisition of
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

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. VOIGTS also worked on potential acquisitions. VOIGTS
5 resigned his positions on July 31, 1993.
8 Describe in detail all services and advice provided by YOU in
9 connection with any proposed or actual business plan or strategy
to for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled

I-
IJ.. by ARMSTRONG.
0
11
a:: RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.9:
U 12
Z
<! 13 See VOIGTS' Response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
m
..• )( 14 herein by reference. Except as identified in response to
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. PEAT
19 MARWICK did provide advice related to the accounting theory
20 applicable to a proposed real estate investment plan involving
21 zero coupon bonds. VOIGTS also had discussions with ARMSTRONG
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
27 III
28 III
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 See VOIGTS# response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
8 herein by reference.
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

~
~
11 Describe in detail all acc~unting services or advice,
0
~
12 including, without limitation, advice regarding accounting for
U
~
z intercompany transactions, that YOU provided for or on behalf of
w ~ 13
u
~
m
~
D~~ 14 HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
7
~
~
15 ARMSTRONG.
~
I RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

w 16
0
-
m 17 See VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
18 herein by reference.
19
21 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:
~ relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of adm~ssible evidence.
2 VOIGTS further objects t~ this interrogatory to the extent it
8 grounds that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
10 necessitate the' preparation or the making of a compilation,

~
~ abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
11
0
OC
U 12 including from Peat's workpapers, which were previously produced
z to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these documents
~
w ~ 13
u rn
~
~
o _.l( 14 would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. S~bject to, and
~
~
IS without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds
,
~
w 16 that he is not aware of any professional services or advice
0
- 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. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any services
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.
24
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,

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
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
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.
~
~
tl VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
o
~
u 12 overbroad anc burdensome and seeks information which is neither
z
~ ~ 13 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
~
~
m
o ~ 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
J
4

I seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
w 16
o
~

24 abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
25 inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

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.

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.
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
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. 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. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
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. The burden of compiling the
9 list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
10 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
~
~
11 Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
0
rr 12 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
u
Z
m
w ~ 13 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
u
~ m
~
o .~
14 reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
~
~
IS incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
~
I aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

w 16
0
-~ 17 ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
18 to Mohamed Hadid. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related
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. Later, as reflected in
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. VOIGTS was told that Dresdner
25 was attempting to collect on the debt.
26 III
27 III
28 III
~
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.
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

~
~ relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
11
0
~
U 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Z
~
w q 13 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
u
~
m
~
o .X 14 is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
l
•
~
IS
I or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
w 16
0
-
~
17 grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
18 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
24 documents, inclUding from PEAT HARWICK'S workpapers which were

professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
1 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
4 incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
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: VOIGTS was told of Dresdner's
10 investment in an oil and gas lease and that the lease was expected
~
~ to yield significant profits. VOIGTS was told that the land had
I1
0
~
U 12 proven reserves which would pay back the acquisition and
z
~ 13 extraction costs quickly and that the lease was acquired cheaply
m
~'~ 14 because the prior owner could not afford to pay for water
15 flooding. Later, VOIGTS was told that water flooding was not
,
! necessary, and that the property was producing oil. VOIGTS
w 16
0
- 17 believes that around the time the transaction was consummated, he
m
18 provided some advice relating to tax andlor accounting
19 implications. VOIGTS does not recall the substance of that
20 advice.
21
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
6 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
7 is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
8 interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
9 or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
10 grounds that it· is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS

~
~ further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
11
0
~
12 require VOIGTS to summarize the discoveryJto date in this or any
U ~
~
z other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
~ ~ 13
u
~
m
~
o .~ 14 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
~
~
IS interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
,
~ compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
w 16
0
- 17 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
m
22 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
27 ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related

28 to loans to or investment in or acquisition of Parker Automotive
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: VOIGTS was told of the investment in Parker
4 Automotive, a public company. VOIGTS was told that the investment
5 was expected to yield significant profits. VOIGTS was nominated
6 to the board of directors of Parker Automotive without his
7 knowledge or consent. When he found out, he immediately insisted
8 that his name be withdrawn as a candidate.
9
~
~
11 Describe in detail ~ll facts known to YOU and any services or
0
~
U 12 advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of real
z
~ 13 estate projects from the Resolution Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG
m
-~ 14 or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.

~
I
0
-
m 17 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
18 relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
21 is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
2J or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

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
6 VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General

~
~
0
OC
U 12 aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
z
~
w ~ 13 ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
~
~
~
m
o -'( 14 to the acquisition of real estate projects from the Resolution
J
•
~
15 Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled

I
w 16 by ARMSTRONG other than those services identified in VOIGTS'
0
-
m 17 response to Interrogatory No. 8 related to the attempted "zero
18 coupon bond" deal. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
19 related to RTC properties, except: VOIGTS was told of the
20 acquisition of an RTC property in San Antonio.
21
24 advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in
25 Professional Investment Fund.



~
~
0
~
U 12 interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
z
~ 13 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
m
.1( 14 documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were

~
w 16 list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
a
- 17 VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
m
21 reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 35,
22 which VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference. specifically,
23 VOIGTS is not aware of any professional services provided to
24 HAMIJ~ON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an

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

PM007410i PM007431i PM006975-77i PM006255-59i PM002110-2114i
2 PM002508-2509i PM007003-7015i PMOOI027-104J.
3 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
~
~
II INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
a
~
u 12 Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
Z
~
w ~ 13 advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to, investment in or
~
~
m
~
o .~ 14 acquisition of River city Fair in San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG
~
~
15 or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
!
w 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
0
- 17 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
m
21 V01GTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
24 or control of individuals or entities other than VOIG~S on the

oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
3 compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
4 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

r
~
0
~
U
z aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
~ 13
m
_.~
14 ARMSTRONG, or entities in Which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
IS to loans to, investment in or acquisition of River city Fair in

L San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
w 16
0
-
m 17 controlled by ARMSTRONG. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
18 related to River City Fair, except: VOIGTS was told that, prior
19 to ARMSTRONG's acquisition of HAMILTON TAFT, HAMILTON TAFT had a
20 pre-existing interest in River City Fair. VOIGTS was told that
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. VOIGTS was
24 familiar with the physical facility, location and concept of River
25 city Fair. He knew that similar ventures had been very popular.
26 III
27 III
28 III
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.
8 overbroad and burdensome an~ seeks information which is neither

~
I.L VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
11
o
£r
U 12 is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
Z
~ <{ 13 interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
~
...
m
O.r-'~ 14 or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the

~
W 16 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
o
(f)
21 compilation, abstr~ct, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
22 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

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

~
~
11 advice provided by YOU with respect to political and charitable
0
~
U 12 contributions made by ARMSTRONG.
Z
~
~ ( 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
u
~
m
~
0 ~ 14 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
!
i
w 16 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
a-
~


28 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
8 reflected in VOIGTS 1 response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS

~
~
0
~
U 12 to political and charitable contributions made by ARMSTRONG. Nor
z
~ 13 was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to any such political
m
.~ 14 and charitable contributions, except: VOIGTS was told that
~ ARMSTRONG had made contributions to a Texas gubernatorial
15
i
~
w 16 candidate and to a charitable youth organization.
0
- 17
m
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.
26 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this

~
~
0
rr previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
u 12
z
~
~ ~ 13 list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
~
~
m
~
o ,,11 14 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
J
~
I
w 16 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
a
- 17 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
W
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.
25

Weir Bros., an excavation company in Dallas, Texas, by ARMSTRONG
2 or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.


l-
lL.
0
a:: grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
U 12
z
til
... ~ 13 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
.: m
u
...
o tJt 14 require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
J ,"
«'
.J
~
w 16 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
0
-
(J) 17 interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a

--------------------
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. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to
5 Weir Bros., except: After the decision had been made to make the
6 acquisition, VOIGTS was told that Weir Bros. had been purchased,
7 that it had contracts, and that it presented favorable business
8 opportunities.
9

~
~
o
oc
u 12 advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase of football
z
~ ( 13 stadium boxes at Texas Stadium by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned
~
~
m
~-~ 14 or controlled by ARMSTRONG.


....
~
0
cr aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
U 12
z
<i 13 ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
m
.l( 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.
a
-
U} 17
IB INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
21 Ccffea International by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
22 controlled by ARMSTRONG.

II
"
II
II is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
I'
II interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
2 I
I,
4 i grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS

l-
lL documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
11
0
IX
U 12 previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
Z
~ 13 list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
m
_.~
. 15 Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
.(
I professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
w 16
0
-
(1) 17 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
18 reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS
22 facts related to loans to or investment in Coffea International by
23 ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
24
27 advice provided by YOU with respect to the proposed acquisition by
28 ARMSTRONG or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG of real

estate from financial institutions by a method involving zero-
coupon 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.
overbroad and burdensome ann seeks information which is neither
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
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

reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
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 u.s. Treasury bonds
8 or stripped securities other than those services identified in
9 VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B concerning the advice
10 related to the accounting theory applicable to a proposed

~
~
11 investment strategy involving zero-coupon bonds. PEAT MARWI~K
0
OC advised ARMSTRONG that PEAT MARWICK could not issue an opinion
U 12
z concurring with the accounting treatment proposed by ARMSTRONG and
~
~ ( 13
u
~
m
~
14 his executives. VOIGTS was not aware of, and does not recall
0
~
~
15 having any involvement in, presentations to, or the preparation of

~
I presentation materials for, prospective sellers, except: VOIGTS
w 16
0
-
m 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. VOIGTS does not recall
20 participating in any such discussions. VOIGTS does not recall
21 ever seeing any presentation materials, but believes that he was
22 told that presentation materials were being put together.
23
26 advice provided by YOU with respect to the reorganization or
27 III
28 III
restructuring of the various entities owned or controlled by
2 ARMSTRONG.

10 interrogatory -to the extent it seeks information in the posses~ion

f-
lJ. or control of individuals or e~tities other than VOIGTS on the
11
0
rr grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
u 12
z
III
10I <{ 13 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
U
m
...~ require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
(I- .~ 14
,
;..
c{ 15 other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and

~
w 16 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
-Ul0 17 interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
27 incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, ARMSTRONG asked
28 VOIGTS if there were any differences between HAMILTON TAFT being

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

~
~
II assets to fund general operating expenses of other entities owned
0
~
U 12 or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
Z
w ~
~
u
~
m
~
o--~ 14 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

~
L
w 16 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
0
- 17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
~
23 further Objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

8 reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 8 which
9 VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is
10 not aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,

l-
lL
0
cr
U 12 to the use of HAMILTON TAFT assets to fund general operating
z
...111 «
m
13 expenses of other entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. Nor
...~
l&.
~--,'\ 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,
I
w 16 except: VOIGTS was told that the acquisitions were generating
0
-
U) 17 income, but he did not know to what extent that income was used
18 for operating expenses. VOIGTS assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds
19 were used for operating expenses, but did not know to what extent.
20

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.



~
~
0
~
z
~ 13 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
m
IJI 14 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were

L list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
w 16
0
- 17 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
~
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
company in Kansas City may have been considering a financing
2 arrangement involving bonds.

J
5 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 f~r such advice.

~
lJ..
0
a:: VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
u 12
Z
«
m
13 as to the words "improper" and "imprudent." VOIGTS also objects
.~ 14 that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."
15 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and

! burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
w 16
0
-
Ul 17 to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
18 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further
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.
25 burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding
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

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. Subject to, and without waiving, these
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. VOIGTS was informed and
9 believed that HAMILTON TAFT was acting in accordance with the
10 advice of its counsel and was making its own determinations as to

....
lL
11 the use of its funds. HAMILTON TAFT did not seek PEAT MARWICK's
0
It
U 12 or VOIGTS' advice in connection with such determinations, and tJ
z
<{ 13 VOIGTS' knowledge, neither VOIGTS nor PEAT MARWICK ever gave any
CD
.• J( 14 such advice. PEAT MARWICK was asked for advice related to the
15 accounting for a proposed real estate transaction involving zero

2: coupon bonds. PEAT MARWICK advised ARMSTRONG that the accounting
w 16
a
-
(/) 17 ARMSTRONG had proposed for the proposed transaction was not
18 feasible.
19
22 advice provided by YOU with respect to any personal expenditures,
23 investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG.
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

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. VOIGTS further objects to this

~
~
0
OC
z
~
w ~ 13 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
u
~
rn
~
0 _,J( 14 documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
~
~
i list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
w 16
0
- 17 VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
~
21 reflected in VOIGT3' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 which VOIGTS
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: ARMSTRONG
re told VOIGTS that he had an interest in a building in Los Angeles

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO Ph~INTIFF'S \~~-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. VOIGTS
4 believed that ARMSTRONG drew salaries from HAMILTON TAFT and the
5 Texas companies. VOIGTS had no knowledge of any personal
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.
10
l-
lL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
0 11
cr Describe in detail any business opportunities or proposed
U 12
z
1/1
10I c{ 13 investments, acquisitions or other transactions that YOU found for
u [{)
...
?- .Ji 14 or presented to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
- 15 controlled by ARMSTRONG.
t
i RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
w 16
0
-
U) 17 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,

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

~
~
11 by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
0
~
U 12 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
Z
~
u ( 13 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to
~
~
m
~
o -. 14 any business opportunities or proposed investments, acquisitions
~
~
15 or other transactions that VOIGTS found for or presented to
I HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
w 16
0
-
m 17 ARMSTRONG, except: VOIGTS introduced the Park Row Shopping Center
18 transaction to Remington. Contrary to plaintiff's accusations in
19 this lawsuit, had Remington pursued the deal, VOIGTS did not stand
20 to benefit financially. Remington did not pursue the deal.
21 VOIGTS also informed ARMSTRONG of a potential short-term
22 investment to fund an airplane purchase. VOIGTS does not recall
23 informing ARMSTRONG of any other potential investments. In none
24 of the above instances did VOIGTS recommend or advise ARMSTRONG or
25 Remington to make the investment.
26 //1
27 //1
28 /11
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.

l-
lL. relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
11
0
((
U 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
z
1/1
!oJ « 13 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
U
IL
m
II.
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. VOIGTS further objects to this
-0If) 17 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
22 abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
28 provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in whi~h

ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
/-,
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
10 reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited

l-
LL to, those bates stamped PM007325-26j PM007410i PM007431: PM006975-
11
0
0:
U 12 77: PM006255-59; PM002110-2114: PM00250B-2509; PM007003-7015;
z
III
kl 4: 13 PMOOI027-1043.
U
~
...o
m
.'<t 14
J
j
! Describe in detail YOUR investigation (including, without
w 16
0
-
(f) 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.

seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
9 abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
10 inclUding from' PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously

~
lL. produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
11
a
0: documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
U 12
z
«
m
_l( 14 responds that he is not aware of any professional services

- 15 provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
~ ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
w 16
0
-
If) 17 response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
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. VOIGTS did no independent investigation and made
27 III
28 III
- --- .... __ ..-.. -- ~ ... ~. _ .. .,..
no "assessment ll relating to the PIF properties because that was

---. 2 beyond the scope of the work PEAT MARWICK was engaged to perform.
5 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.

I-
tL overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
0 11
cr relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
U 11
Z
<{ 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
m
~1t' 14 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
<{ 15 seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

l: entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
w 16
0
-(f) 17 burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
20 ground that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
24 including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously

provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
2 ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
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;
l-
LL PM002110-2114; PM002508-2509; PM007003-70l5; PM001027-l043;
o 11
Ir
U 12 PM003407-3496.
Z
~ 13 In particular, at the time that PEAT HARWICK was performing
m
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

~
L MARWICK understood that Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. ("Oresdner n )
w 16
o
17 was pledging the notes that it had acquired from Hamilton Taft &
(fJ
18 company as collateral for Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft &

19 Company. In addition, Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft & Company
20 was collateralized by the interest of CCAJ Corporation in a joint
21 venture called Professional Investment Fund (IIPIF"). PIF owned
22 interests in approximately 100 partnerships which in turn owned
23 approximately 100 shopping centers located primarily in the
24 southern United states.
25 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. 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. Because PEAT HARWICK's work was performed in
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.
10
~
~ INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
11
0
~
U lZ state all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform an
z
w ~
~
13 acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT, including, without limitation,
u
,
~ m
0 ~
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,
0
-m 17 and the persons to whom the audit report or the contents thereof
18 were intended to be or were actually communicated.
21 overbroad and burdQnsome and seeks information which is neither

,. f •
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
9 to, and without waiving, these and his General objections, VOIGTS
I- 10 responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform

IJ.. - this audit. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
o ~ 11
a: engagement are reflected in PEAT HARWICK's workpapers. The
U~ 12
Z
~ <t:: 13 auditors on the engagement were as follows: Keith L. Voigts,
gm
(;.1C ~ 14 partner; Mark Austin, manager; Bob Teh, senior: Erin Murray, staff
~"
~
~ ~ 15 assistant, and Lisa Rego, staff assistant. The engagement letter,
L~
Wi 16 bates stamped PM006629-32, defines the intended scope of the
o
in 17 engagement. The audit report, bates stamped PM007349-7357,
18 defines the scope of the services that were performed, directed to
19 the stockholders of HAMILTON TAFT and speaks for itself. VOIGTS
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. VOIGTS had no knOWledge of any intended or actual
23 external uses or external disclosures.
24
26 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

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.

-
l-
lL. ~ VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
o~ 11
a: seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
U~ 12
z
~: 13 entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
m:' 0
~..... 14 burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
~ oJ
~-
wr 16 summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
0
-
(J) 17 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
25 responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform
26 audit work. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
27 engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers. PEAT
28 MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period

ended December 31, 1990. Rather, because the 1989 audit had not
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. That audit was never completed. The auditors on
5 II the engagement were as follows: Keith L. voigts, partner; Mark
6 II Austin, manager; Erin Murray and Kristin Conover, seniors and
7 II Kelly Jensen, assistant. VOIGTS had no knowledge of any uses to
8 11 which the audit reports were to be put, or any persons to whom the
9 II audit reports or the contents thereof were intended to be or were
10 II actually commuhicated.
l-
lL
11
o
a: INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
u 12
z
c:( 13 state all facts regarding why YOUR audits of HAMILTON TAFT as
m
----1\ 14 of year-end 1989 and year-end 1990 were never completed.

~
~
o
(fJ 17 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
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. VOIGTS further objects to this
2S II summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
27 II further objects that responding to this interrogatory would


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. The burden of compiling the list of these
6 responds that PEAT HARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform
7 audit work. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
8 engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers. PEAT
9 MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period
10 ended December· 31, 1990. Rather, because the 1989 audit had not
I-
It.. - been completed, at some point, PEAT MARWICK and the company
O~ 11
((
U~ 12 discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a
z
~~ 13 one-year period. That audit was never completed. PEAT HARWICK's
m::' 0
or
.-1( ~ 14 reasons for not completing that audit are summarized in PEAT
<{ J
15 HARWICK's workpapers including, but not limited to, those bates
~-
Wi 16 stamped PM001424. PEAT HARWICK could not complete its audit
0
-Ul 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. Ultimately, HAMILTON TAFT informed PEAT
23 MARWICK directly that it did not wish to proceed with the audit.
24
26 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

·.
actual or proposed business transactions with third parties.
) VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
10 burdensome and. oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this

l-
l.L • interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
O~ 11
a: summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
U~ 12
z ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
t1 <{ ~ 13
u '"
i;: lD
It..
(1.-.~ ~ 14 further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
:r.
ii
«~ 15
:l: - abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
Wi 16
-0
(J) 17 including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
21 responds that he performed professional services as listed in
22 VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No.8. VOIGTS is unaware of the
23 uses for which HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities
24 utilized PEAT MARWICK's audit or review reports. VOIGTS was told
25 that ARMSTRONG was contemplating listing PEAT HARWICK as
26 Remington's auditor on a Remington brochure. VOIGTS does not
27 III
28 III
recall seeing any such brochure. See also VOIGTS' Response to
2 Interrogatory No. 41, which is incorporated herein by reference.
5 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.

l-
lL. ~ relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
o~ 11
a: calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
U':: 12
Z
<t:~ 13 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
m~
"( ..~ 14 seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

<t: -'
L- burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
w~ 16
0
-
U) 17 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
21 n~cessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
27 responds that he had two brief conversations with people who
28 identified themselves as actual or prospective clients of HAMILTON

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. When asked, VOIGTS stated that he was not
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. The other was with a man. Both
7 conversations were over the phone. Neither was initiated by
8 VOIGTS. Both occurred sometime between May 1, 1989 and
9 December 31, 1990.
10
l-
oll. ~- 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

lr
U~ 12 Describe in detail YOUR involvement in the Advisory Board Lf
z
~ <{:; 13 Directors of Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. and/or The Remington
~ lD
~ ..... ~:'i 14 Companies, Inc., including, without limitation, the nature of YOUR
r o
... ~ 15 role in connection with said Advisory Board, all meetings YOU
i:-
wi 16 attended, all topics and transactions or proposed transactions
o
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.

25 VOIGTS further objects that this interrogatory is compound and
26 contains subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

I •

2 this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
4 ground that it is unduly burdensome and opp~essive. VOIGTS
7 abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,

10 documents woula be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject

....
LL ~
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
O~ 11
a:
U~ IZ responds that he attended two or three Advisory Board meetings as
Z
~ «~ 13 a guest, for the purpose of keeping generally familiar with what
~
...
m..
o ._,11 ~ 14 the companies were doing so that PEAT HARWICK could complete an
~
-
4
~ 15 audit efficiently when instructed to do so. VOIGTS also attended

'(
~-
wi: 16 to comment on accounting issues should they arise. VOIGTS does
0
- 17 not recall making any such comments. VOIGTS is aware of no other
lJJ
18 involvement with the Advisory Board, except: VOIGTS recalls some
19 discussion of the zero coupon bond proposal and of Remington's

20 general business strategy. VOIGTS does not recall any specific
21 transactions or proposed transactions being discussed. VOIGTS
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.
25
27 Identify all fees (including amounts of fees, services for
28 which fees were paid, and persons or entities for or on behalf of

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.

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
[r
U~ 12 information. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the
Z
~ ~: 13 extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
~ m
~ .1( ~ 14 individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
~ Cl
•
or
<t ~ 15 is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
I -
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
24 documents would be the same for plai~tiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
26 responds as follows: PEAT MARWICK was retained by HAMILTON TAFT
27 and the other entities owned by ARMSTRONG, not VOIGTS. All fees
28 for PEAT MARWICK'S services were paid to PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS.
~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 INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
9 II Identify (inclUding, without limitation, name, current
10 II address and telephone nUmber, position with PEAT HARWICK and
t-
LL location of PEAT MARWICK office where employed) each employee,
11
o
a:: partner and agent of PEAT MARWICK who worked on any PEAT MARWICK
u 12
z
~ <{ 13 engagement with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
..~ m
IL
o,....-l( 14 controlled by ARMSTRONG.
(
<{
~
w 16 VOIGTS objects to this i~terrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
o overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
(fJ 17
18 11 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
21 II seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or

25 II summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
27 II further objects that responding to this interrogatory would

f.o
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEA~ MARWICK's documents,

,-
2 including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously
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.
10
I-
l1.. ~
O~ 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
a: As to each individual identified in YOUR response to
U~ 12
z
<i~ 13 Interrogatory No. 44, describe with particularity the work
m~0
-~JI 0~ 14 performed or services provided for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
:<
Ci
«~ 15 entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, including the nature of
L ~
wi: 16 the engagement in connection with which such work or services were
-0
U) 17 performed.

ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
9 responds as follows: See PEAT MARWICK's Supplemental Response to
10 Interrogatory No. 44, incorporated herein by reference.

l-
lL -
0;:; 11
a:
u~ 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
Z
~ ~ ~ 13 Describe in detail the circumstances (including, without
~ m
~ --'~ ;:: 14 limitation, the date and reasons) surrounding the termination,
~
~
"' ~ 15 withdrawal or resignation of VOIGTS as a partner and/or employee
L -
w• 16 of PEAT MARWICK.
o
lil 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
18 VOIGTS Objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,


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

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: PEAT

3 II MARWICK has previously produced to plaintiff Mr. VOIGTS' personnel
4 1\ file. VOIGTS retired from PEAT HARWICK on May 1, 1991 as part of
5 II PEAT MARWICK's streamlining program in which it significantly
6 II reduced its partnership.
7
8 II INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
9 II Describe in detail all business relationships between YOU and

10 II ARMSTRONG at all times up to and including the date hereof.
l-
lL
o
0:
U 12 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
Z
~ ~ 13 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
~
lL
m
...
~.-1J'i 14 relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably

-.t
I
w 16 Specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for
a
17 information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation
Ul
1811 from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS is therefore not supplying any such
19 II information in this response. VOIGTS further objects to this
21 II or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
23 II further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
25 II other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
~:~~~ SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 66 -
I I
5 Objections, VOIGTS responds that he performed the professional
6 services identified in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 and
7 other responses herein. VOIGTS is not aware of any other business
8 relationships with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities
9 While VOIGTS' was a partner with PEAT MARWICK.
... _ 10
lL -
o~ 11 Dated: November 5l, 1994 Respectfully submitted,
lr
U ~ 12 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT
Z
A Partnership Including
~ ~:: 13 Professional Corporations
~ m
~ ,.J( ; 14
c
~ ~ 15
L _
By:
wi: 16 DANIEL E'. KRITZ V
a Attorneys for Defendant
lO 17
KEITH L. VOIGTS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~'':::':-'':' ~BT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 67 -
!I
- '"
I'
VERIFICATION
(" - 2
3 I, Keith L. VOIGTS, am the defendant in this proceeding. I

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. The same is true of my own knowledge,
7 II except as to those matters which are therein stated on information

8 and belief, and as to those natters, I believe them to be true.
10 I declar~ under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

I-
u.. state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
11
o
a: Executed this day of November, 1994, at
u 12
z
~
!:I
«
m
13 --------------, California.
"~ l<1 14
~,-.
~
IS
~
w 16 KEITH L. VOIGTS
o
If) 17
DEK:sa/mp:1992/P/94.0262
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

~r~ST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 69 -
f,~
..... ~rJ.
. .- <..~
.
~~
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY HANO
,,--. z I, the undersigned, state that I am employed in the City and

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)
10 DEFENOANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO

l- PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
LL
11
o DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
a: PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGAT~RIES
u 12
z on the person(s) listed below, by hand-delivering said true copy
~ ~ 13
~ (J)
It.
(; ~ 14 to and at the offices ot the person(s) s~t forth below:

~.
I
15 Dale Barnes, Jr., Esq.
Mary Huser, Esq.
~ McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
W 16
o Three Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
17 San Francisco, CA 94111
(/)
18 Richard L. Jaeger, Esq.

Laura Grad, Esq.
19 Feldman, Waldman & Kline
Russ Building, 27th Floor
20 235 Montgomery street
San Francisco, CA 94104
21
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
22
and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, this ?1~
23
day of ~~ l!J21J/ , 19~.
2.4
25
26
bLse rYl. /.¥2-2a<ve.
[Type or print) ©~~J!l-= [Signature]
2.7
.f"
28
t3d-4
rCJJ}L (0 q
II

Voigts&#39; Rogs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Voigts&#39; Rogs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID P.

BANCROFT (5B #052106)

25 of special Interrogatories as follows:

2 1. 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. VOIGTS reserves the right to

6 supplement these responses as his investigation and discovery

8 2. 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.

19 burdensome and oppressive.

20 5. 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.

23 6. 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

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

7 Identify all services performed by defendant VOIGTS for or on

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. (For purposes

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. VOIGTS further objects to this

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. SUbject to,

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

5 with respect to each service identified in YOUR response to

6 Interrogatory No.1, describe with particularity all facts on

8 agent of PEAT MARWICK.

9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:

18 client tax deposits.

19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:

20 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

21 as to the use of the word "permissible. 1t

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. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory

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. VOIGTS further objects to

DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'

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. Subject to

4 and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS

5 responds as follows: VOIGTS was not engaged to and did not

6 provide advice or services to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities

7 owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG concerning permissible uses of

9 provide limited analyses of section 7501 of the Internal Revenue

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

18 ARMSTRONG was permissible.

19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4:

20 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous

21 as to the use of tr~ word "permissible." VOIGTS further objects

22 to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks

Voigts' Rogs

Voigts' Rogs