You are on page 1of 161
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, Individually, and as Co-Special Administrators Of the Estate of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No, CJ-2012-265 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.O., M.Ed., Judge Jim D. Bland Defendants. DEFENDANTS NARCONON INTERNATIONAL’S AND ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT COME NOW the Defendants Narconon International (hereinafter “NI”) and Association for Better Living and Education International (hereinafter “ABLE”), by and through their altomeys of record, and pursuant to 12 0.S. § 2056 and Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts in Oklahoma, hereby file this Motion for Summary Judgment, establishing that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial and that these Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In support, the Defendants would state as follows: L INTRODUCTION This is a wrongful death action regarding the services provided to Stacy Murphy by Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead (hereinafter “Arrowhead”), In the instant action, Plaintiffs have not made allegations of independent negligence against NI and ABLE. However, Plaintiffs allege Arrowhead is “a corporate sham and illusion, is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of [NI and ABLE], and is heavily controlled by [NI B, Ph and ABLE]. See Exhibit A, Petition, $13 and 14 and Ex! ffs” Response to NI’s Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiffs allege Arrowhead “must pay a license fee to NI and agree to use the Hubbard technology in a manner that is heavily regulated by NI.” See Exhibit A, Petition, § 19, Plaintiffs further allege the Arrowhead program “operates under strict rules related to the discipline, structure, hierarchy, and training of ABLE and its subsidiaries”. See Exhibit A, Petition, {| 26. Plaintiffs also assert a claim labeled “Vicarious Liability & Civil Conspiracy”. See Exhibit A, Petition, pg. 10. Plaintiffs assert that the conduct of the officers and employees of cach of the Defendants is the act or omission of the Defendant, and the Defendants “acted together in concert to unlawfully and tortuously operate a dangerous, unsafe and unsupervised drug and alcoho! rehabilitation program at [Arrowhead]”, See Exhibit A, Petition, § 58 and 60. Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that ABLE and NI assert the amount of control necessary to establish an agency or alter ego relationship. Thus, based on the undisputed facts, summary judgment should be granted in favor of these Defendants. I. STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS For purposes of this motion only, these Defendants provide the following statement of facts for which no genuine issue exists: 1. ABLE js a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business in California, See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi 2. As a non-profit corporation, ABLE does not issue shares or own stock in any other organization. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi. 3. ABLE was formed for the following purpose: [S]upervising and coordinating the promotion and dissemination of the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology in secular fields by organizations formed to use the Hubbard Philosophy and technology in those fields, and specifically for the purposes of (1) improving and revitalizing society, especially in the fields of .. drug rehabilitation .., , by the use and application of methods and information applicable to such purposes, (2) making training available to organizations with like purposes, (3) coordinating the activities of such, organizations toward effective actions in such fields, and (4) ensuring that information and material are useful to the improvement of society in such fields are broadly disseminated. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between ABLE and NI, pg. 2, 4B. ABLE is the owner of the Narconon trademarks and has the right to disseminate standards for the proper use and display of the Narconon marks. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between ABLE and NI. ABLE grants NI (1) the right to use the Narconon marks and (2) the right to grant nonexclusive sublicenses to organizations who agree to abide by the restrictions of the and NI. license agreement. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between ABL ABLE has the right to monitor the operations of NI and its sublicensees in regard to the use of the Narconon marks to ensure compliance with all standards. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between ABLE and NI. ABLE monitors compliance of organizations that use the Narconon marks by conducting compliance inspections. See Exhibit E, Rubina Qureshi’s deposition, pgs. 40-41:23-10. The License Agreement between ABLE and NI explicitly disclaims any agency relationship: Neither party shall be deemed to be the agent, joint venture, or partner of the other, and neither shall have the authority to act in behalf of the other in any matter, including acceptance of service of process. ‘See Exhibit D, License Agreement between ABLE and NI, pg. 10, § 10. 10. ul 1B. 14. 15. 16. ABLE does not manage, supervise, or control the day-to-day activities and operations of Arrowhead. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi and Exhibit E, Qureshi’s deposition, pg. 22:4-15. ABLE receives weekly statistics from Narconon Intemational to monitor the statistical trends and determine how well the program is being delivered. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi. ABLE is not involved in the decision to hire, fire or discipline Arrowhead staff. See Exhibit F, ABLE’s Responses to Plaintifls’ Second Discovery, Answer to Interrogatory No. 24 ABLE does not control or direct the wages or working conditions of Arrowhead staff, and ABLE does not supervise Arrowhead’s staff's daily work routine. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi In 2012, ABLE made a charitable contribution to NI to promote and spread the good works of the program. See Exhibit E, Rubina Qureshi’s deposition, pe. 36:3-20. ABLE has made charitable contributions to Arrowhead for promotional activities. See Exhibit E, Rubina Qureshi’s deposition, pg. 38:19-25, ABLE did not pay the salaries or losses of Narconon International or Arrowhead. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi. NI and Arrowhead are not subsidiaries, divisions or departments of ABLE. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi and Exhibit G, Clark Carr's deposition, pg. 92:16-18. ABLE’s corporate directors and officers do not serve as directors or officers for Narconon International or Arrowhead. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi 20. 21 23. 24, ABLE’s corporate books and bank accounts are maintained separate and apart from Narconon International and Arrowhead, and ABLE prepares financial statements separate and apart from Narconon International and Arrowhead. See Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi. NI is @ non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in California. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr, AS a non-profit corporation, NI does not issue shares or own stock in any other organization, See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr. NIis a non-profit organization, which: uses the Hubbard philosophy and technology in secular fields, with emphasis on the field of drug rehabilitation and education, and has the responsibility of supervising and coordinating the use, promotion and dissemination of the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology by its organizations in this field. NARCONON INT has been licensed by ABLE to use the Marks and to sublicense the use of the marks to other organizations in the field of drug rehabilitation and education, See Exhibit D, License Agreement between NI and Arrowhead, pg. 2, 9D. NI grants Arrowhead the nonexclusive right and license to use the Narconon marks. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between NI and Arrowhead ‘NI has the right to disseminate standards for the proper use and display of the Narconon marks and monitor all operations of Arrowhead with respect to the use of the Narconon marks to ensure compliance with all standards. NI may send a corrective mission to Arrowhead to correct any deviation from the standards. See Exhibit D, License Agreement between NI and Arrowhead. ‘The License Agreement between NI and Arrowhead explicitly disclaims any agency relationship: 25. 26. 21. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Neither party shall be deemed to be the agent, joint venture, or partner of the other, and neither shall have the authority to act in behalf of the other in any matter, including acceptance of service of process, ‘See Exhibit D, License Agreement between NI and Arrowhead, pg. 6, 10. NI monitors compliance of centers that use the Narconon marks by condu compliance inspections. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr's deposition, pgs. 9-10:16-3 NI requires Arrowhead to provide it with weekly statistics in order to monitor the evolving production and development of the Narconon program. NI may make recommendations to Arrowhead based on the statistical reports. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr's deposition, pg. 11-12:5-4 and 44-45:18-8 NI does not hire or fire Arrowhead staff. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr's deposition with Jurat and Errata, pgs. 29-30; 22-3. NI does not have any authority to recommend disciplinary action in regard to an Arrowhead employee. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr’s deposition, pg, 32:22-2. NI does not control or direct the wages or working conditions of Arrowhead staff and does not supervise Arrowhead’s staff's daily work routine. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr. ‘NI does not manage or control the day-to-day activities and operations of Arrowhead. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr’s deposition pg. 45:17-20, Arrowhead is not a subsidiary, vision or department of NI, and NI is not a sul division or department of ABLE. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr. NI has provided Arrowhead with charitable contributions. See Exhibit G, Clark Carr's deposition, pg. 83:3-13. 33. 34, 36. 37, I. NI’s corporate directors and officers do not serve as directors or officers for ABLE or Arrowhead. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr. NI’s corporate books and bank accounts are maintained separate and apart from ABLE and Arrowhead, and NI prepares financial statements separate and apart from Arrowhead and ABLE. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr. NI and ABLE have no power to control daily maintenance of the Arrowhead facility or its business expenditures. NI and ABLE do not fix Arrowhead’s consumer rates or demand a share of its profits, other than the license fee due to NI pursuant to the license agreement. See Exhibit H, Affidavit of Clark Carr and Exhibit C, Affidavit of Rubina Qureshi. In 2012, during the time that Stacy Murphy was a student, Arrowhead was not undercapitalized and had a positive cash flow. See Exhibit 1, Gary Smith’s deposition as Asrowhead’s corporate representative, pgs. 130-131:19-2. Plaintiffs do not have any evidence of any act or omission by ABLE or NI that directly caused Stacy Murphy's death, See Exhil J, Tonya White’s deposition, pg. 350:1-10. In fact, Plaintiff Tonya White knew nothing about ABLE or NI. Id ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES: AL AGENCY-BASED VICARIOUS LIABILTY When the facts reli upon to establish the existence of the agency are undisputed and conflicting inferences cannot be drawn therefrom, the issue of agency is one of law for the court to decide. See Keel v. Titan Const. Corp., 1981 OK 148, 43, 639 P.2d 1228, 1230. A licensing or franchise arrangement does not, as a matter of course, establish an agency relationship for purposes of liability to third persons. See Thornton v. Ford Motor Company, et al., 297 P.3d 413, 2013 OK CIV APP 7. Rather, the liability of ABLE and NI depends primarily on the degree of control exercised over Arrowhead, and Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that ABLE and NI exercised control over the day-to-day operations of Arrowhead. a. Actual Authority In Thornton v. Ford Motor Company, et al., 297 P.3d 413, 2013 OK CIV APP 7, the fs sued Ford and its defunct dealership for conduct associated with the sale of certain pl vehicles, The plaintiff pursued various theories of liability against Ford, including a suggestion that Ford was negligent in allowing the dealership to sell Ford vehicles to the public. The Court held that there was no actual agency relationship between Ford and the dealership sufficient to impose liability on Ford for the dealership’s conduct. /d. at {19. The Court noted that actual agency is created by “the principal’s manifestation of consent to the agent that he is authorized to act on the principal’s behalf and subject to its control.” Jd. at 18. When a written contract exists, the nature of their relationship is determined by the intent of the contractual language and the evidence of their actual conduct. ‘The Court held that the dealership was an “independent dealership” and that Ford did not have the right to control day-to-day operations and activities of the dealership. Jd. at 19. “Responsibility for an agent's injury to third parties is placed on the party that hires, directs and controls the agent.” Id, The trial court made findings that indicated that the dealership was not Fords actual agent. To establish actual agency, the plaintiffs in Thornton also apparently relied upon the licensing agreement whereby Ford allowed the dealership to use the Ford trademark. ‘The Court however held that a licensor’s retention of control over the use of its trademark was consistent with Court decisions which hold that a manufacturer/franchisor “may exercise some control to protect its national identity, reputation and trademark from abandonment without creating an agency relationship with its dealer/franchisee.” Id. at $20 (emphasis added). The Court also noted that recent Oklahoma case law holds that there must be a “detailed assertion of control” to turn a franchise agreement into an agency relationship, and the “passing of “some monetary consideration’ from the franchisee to the franchisor was insufficient proof of the required detailed assertion of control to establish an agency relationship.” Id. at (21. In Gabler v. Holder & Smith, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 107, 11 P.3d 1269, 1274, former employees brought an action against their employer, its officers and franchisor. ‘The plaintiffs alleged that the franchisor was a controlling corporation of their employer. The appellate court rejected that argument, noting that the defendant exercised no day-to-day control over the co- defendant. The plaintiffs produced a copy of a website page for the franchisor, but the Court noted that this document established nothing more than the existence of a franchise relationship. While the plaintiffs were entitled to a favorable inference regarding the relationship — which included the fact that monetary consideration passed between the co-defendants and that the franchisor exercised some degree of control over how the local corporation conducted business — this was insufficient to establish the letailed assertion of control which may make a franchise agreement the source of an agency relationship.” /d. at 1274. Hence, the plaintiff's agency and respondeat superior claims failed. Id. Similar to the instant case, the defendant in Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 219 S.E.2d 874, 875 (Va. 1975), argued there was no relationship with regard to the operator of a motel other than a li se agreement permitting the operator to use the tradename, which was subject to all the terms and conditions of such license agreement. The license agreement described the Holiday Inn ‘system’ as one “providing to the public ... an inn service ... of distinctive nature, of high quality, and of other distinguishing characteristics snsee was required to pay a license fee. Id. The plaintiff argued that several provisions in the license agreement satisfied the control test, including requirements that the licensee construct its motels according to specifications approved by the licensor; that the licensee employ tradenames, signs and symbols designated by the licensor; that the licensee conduct business under the ‘system’; that the licensee make quarterly reports to the licensor concerning operations; and that the licensee submit to periodic inspections conducted by the licensor’s representatives. Id. at 876-877. ‘The Court recognized that a trademark owner must, in order to preserve his asset and protect the public against deceptive uses of the mark, regulate the activities of his licensee. Id. at 877. The Court found that there was no agency relationship because the license agreement did not give the defendant the right to control the day-to-day operation of the motel. Id The purpose of the agreement was to achieve system-wide standardization of business identity, uniformity of commercial service and optimum public good will. Id. at 878. The defendant had no power to control daily maintenance of the facility or business expenditures, fix customer rates ‘or demand a share of the profits. Jd, The defendant also had no power to hire or fire the motel’s. employees, determine wages or working conditions, set standards for employee skills or productivity, supervise employee work routine or discipline employees. Jd. The Court found all management controls and responsibilities customarily exercised by an owner and operator of an ongoing business were retained by the motel; thus, the licensing agreement did not constitute control within the definition of agency. 1d.; see also Triplett v. Soleil Group, Inc., 664 F.Supp.2d 645 (D.S.C. 2009) (finding franchisee of hotel was not agent of franchisor, and thus franchisor ‘was not vicariously liable to guest, for injuries he suffered as a consequence of Legionnaires" disease contracted from exposure to bacteria in the hotel pool area; license agreement entitled franchisor to inspect the hotel to preserve reputation of its trademarks, but terms of agreement 10 indicated that franchisor never exerted control over daily operations of the swimming pool and whirlpool tub areas of hotel); Madison v. Hollywood Subs, Inc., 997 $0.24 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (holding franchisor could not be held liable to estate of customer who was shot and car in d killed while a passenge! fe-through lane of franchisee’s restaurant for the alleged adequate security outside the restaurant; the only control the franchise agreement gave to franchisor was to insure uniformity in the standardization of products and services offered by the restaurant, with day to day operations left within the sole control of the franchisee); Coty v U. § Slicing Machine Co., 373 N.E.2d 1371 (Ill, Ct. App. 1978) (holding franchisor was not liable for injury to customer caused by meat slicing machine operated by employee of franchisee where franchisor did not have control over day-to-day operation of franchise's establishment); Thomas v. Freeway Foods, Inc., 406 F.Supp.2d 610 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (applying North Carolina law) (noting that, although franchisee accepted recommendations of franchisor's franchise liaison, franchisor exercised no control in the hi , firing, training, or supervision of franchisee’s employees, and franchise agreement expressly stated that no agency relationship existed). For the same reasons, the mere existence of a licensing arrangement between ABLE, NI and Arrowhead is not sufficient to impose liability. The license agreements clearly deny any intent to create an agency relationship. Furthermore, ABLE and NI are separate corporate entities that do not control the day-to-day operations of Arrowhead. See Uncontroverted Facts. Similar to Thornton and Murphy, supra, these Defendants have an interest in protecting the Narconon trademarks and have a right to regulate the activities of their licensee to ensure uniformity of the Narconon program without creating an agency relationship. The degree of control that these Defendants exercise over Arrowhead does not transform the licensing arrangement into an agency situation, u b. Apparent Authority In order for the Plaintiffs to show apparent authority, they must show "(1) conduet of the principal [which would reasonably lead the third party to believe that the agent was authorized to act on behalf of the principal], (2) reliance thereon by the third person, and (3) change of position by the third party to his detriment." Thornton, supra, at (28. In Thornton, the Court rejected an ‘apparent agency argument. The Court noted that “a principal is subject to vicarious liability for a tort comt fed by an agent in dealing or communicating with a third party on or purportedly on behalf of the principal when actions taken by the agent with apparent authority constitute the tort or enable the agent to conceal its commission.” However, such liability exists only by “manifestation by the principal 10 a third person that another is his agent.” Jd. at 427. The principal’s manifestation may be made directly to a third person or to the community by signs or by advertising, but apparent authority only exists where it is reasonable for the third person dealing with the agent to believe that the agent is authorized. Jd The plaintiffs in Thornton argued that Ford allowed the dealership to use to Ford trademark oval sign on the dealership premises and permitted its use in newspaper and telephone advertisements. /d. at 429. The Court held, nearly categorically, that the display of “distinctive colors and trademark signs” does not create an apparent agency situation. 1d, at $30. The Court held that it is common knowledge that trademark signs are used throughout the country by independent dealers. Jd. at $31. Ford's trademark signs “do not alone create apparent authority.” Jd. citing to Coe v. Esau, 1963 OK 1, 377 P.2d 815 (holding the prominent display of the trademark name of the landlord at a gas station on the premises and in advertisements and the telephone directory was not sufficient to show a lessce was the agent of the owner); Stephens v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., Japan, 1981 OK 42, 627 P.2d 439 (plaintiff's mere statement that he believed that tire repair service offered by service station was authorized by petroleum company and were part of services offered by Petroleum company was not sufficient to justify trial of issue whether petroleum company would be liable as principal on theory of apparent authority). Here, per the license agreements, Arrowhead was allowed to utilize the trademarks by ABLE and NI. As shown above, the license agreements alone are not enough to establish an agency relationship, and the agreements explicitly disclaim any agency relationship. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence that ABLE and NI have represented to them or to the public that Arrowhead had the authority to act on behalf of these Defendants. In support of their allegations, Plaintiff refer to printouts of ABLE’s website and the license agreements. See Exhibit B, Plaintiffs’ Responses to NI’s Interrogatories Nos. 11-13 and Exhibit K, Plaintiffs’ Response to ABLE’s Interrogatory No. 9. The first Printout states that “ABLE is the umbrella organization that serves as a coordinating body, provides guidance, support and promotion and ies and ensures that these programs are known, made available and reach entire commui populations thereby improving the lives of people they serve.” The second printout of ABLE’s webpage has information regarding the Narconon program and provides links to Narconon websites, including links to websites for NI and Arrowhead along with several other Narconon facilities. These webpage printouts lack any evidence that Arrowhead was authorized to act on behalf of ABLE and/or NI. ‘They merely establish the existence of a relationship and display and advertise the Narconon tradename, which does not create an agency relationship, Additionally, Plaintiffs have made no showing that they had any knowledge regarding NI’s and ABLE rel ionship with Arrowhead. Tonya White, Stacy’s mother who helped find Arrowhead, testified as follows: Q_ And are you aware that Narconon International is also named as a defendant in Um, yes, I—I.am aware of that. Do you have any understanding of why that is? I don’t know anything about Narconon International. And what about ABLE, Association For Better Living; do you know anything about that organization or why they're in this lawsuit? Un, no, I don’t. DPO>y > ‘See Exhibit J, Tonya White's deposition, pg. 350:1-10. ‘Thus, since Plaintiffs had no knowledge whatsoever regarding NI and ABLE, summary judgment is appropriate on behalf of these Defendants. B. ALTER EGO/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL Plaintiffs have also suggested that the three defendants are all the same entity, and the alter-ego of one another so that each is liable for the other's conduct. In Oklahoma, corporate distinctions may be disregarded and two entities may be treated as one if the corporation is but an instrumentality or agent of another. See Pennmark Resources v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm., 2000 OK CIV APP 63, 6 P.3d 1076, 1081. Factors to be considered in determining if an entity has sufficient control over another entity to justify treating one as the instrumentality of the other for the purpose of a given transaction were set forth in Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority, 1989 OK 73, § 17, 775 P.2d at 288: 1) the parent corporation owns all or most of the subsidiary’s stock, 2) the corporations have common directors or officers, 3) the parent provides financing to its subsidiary, 4) the dominant corporation subscribes to all the other’s stock, 5) the subordinate corporation is grossly undercapitalized, 6) the parent pays the salaries, expenses or losses of the subsidiary, 7) almost all of the subsidiary’s business is with the parent or the assets of the former were conveyed from the latter, 8) the parent refers to its subsidiary as a division or department, 9) the subsidiary’s officers or directors follow directions from the parent corporation and 10) legal formalities for Keeping the entities separate and independent are observed. Jd. In addition to these factors, commonality of purpose also may be considered. See Oliver v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, 1997 OK 71, 941 P.2d 985. It is not necessary for Fraudulent intent to be present for the alter ego theory to be applied to pierce the corporate veil ——,——— 63, 6 P.3d 1076, 1081 The Tenth Circuit in Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 618 F.2d 1373, 1379 (om 1980), affirmed the Western District of Oklahoma's granting of summary judgment for a parent Ts ——— subsidiary, the two shared several off rs, the parent contracted to furnish the subsidiary with equipment and services, and a parent employee negotiated a contract for the subsidiary that was sent to the Parent's home office rather than the subsidiary’s office. Ld. at 1378, ‘The court in Lucket found that a majority of the factors necessary to evidence alter ego were lacking. Id Similar to the instant case, in Quarles v. Fuqua Industries, Inc., 504 F.2d 1358 (10" 1974), the plaintiffs alleged that a parent company was the alter €g0 of its subsi lary and pointed ‘o “facts” that indicated that separation was not maintained: (1) the Parent corporation received monthly financial reports from subsidiary and consulted with its officers; (2) the parent's insurance department purchased insurance for its subsidiary: (3) the Parent provided financial Support: (4) employment contracts of officers of subsidiary required them to be available in an advisory capacity to parent; (5) two of Parent's staff members were on subsidiary's board of directors and three of parent’s employees were subsidiary's officers; (6) parent's employee stock Purchase plan was available to employees of subsidiary: and (7) subsidiary was sold as an ‘profitable investment, The Tenth Circuit found that the facts did not warrant application of alter ego doctrine over parent company because the total participation did not amount to a ee —,— Court stated that although the parent company had the opportunity to control its subsidiary, the exercise of, not the Opportunity to exercise, control is determinative. Id. 15 As discussed above, ABLE, NI and Arrowhead are three separate corporate entities, and ABLE and NI did not control the day-to-day operations of Arrowhead. The undisputed facts show that ABLE and NI are non-profit corporations and do not issue or own stock in any other organization. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 1, 2, 19 and 20. ABLE’s and NI’s corporate directors and officers do not serve as directors or officers for Arrowhead. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 17 and 33. ABLE and NI do not hire, fire or discipline Arrowhead’s staff. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 11, 27 and 28. ABLE and NI have made charitable contributions to Arrowhead, but ABLE and NI did not pay the salaries or losses of Arrowhead. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 13-15, 32, 35 and 36, Arrowhead is not a subsidiary, division or department of ABLE or NI. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 16 and 31. ABLE and NI’s corporate books and bank accounts are maintained separate and apart from Arrowhead, and ABLE and NI prepare financial statements separate and apart from Arrowhead. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 18 and 34. ABLE and NI do not manage, supervise or control the day-to-day activities and operations of Arrowhead. See Uncontroverted Facts Nos. 9 and 30. ‘Thus, summary judgment is appropriate for these Defendants. C. CONSPIRACY a, Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously allege alter ego and conspiracy. Plantiffs cannot, as a matter of law, establish that a conspiracy existed among Arrowhead, Nl and ABLE. Plaintiffs assert that Arrowhead, NI and ABLE engaged in a conspiracy, and they collectively constitute two or more persons how combined to act unlawfully. A civil conspiracy consists of a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. See Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, 958 P.2d 128, 148. Unlike its criminal counterpart. civil conspiracy itself does not create liability, and in order to be liable, 16 the conspirators must pursue an independently unlawful purpose or use an independently unlawful means. 1d. A conspiracy between two or more persons to injure another is not enough: an underlying unlawful act is necessary to prevail on a civil conspiracy claim. See Roberson v. PaineWebber, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 17, 998 P.2d 193, 201 Plaintiffs have contended throughout their lawsuit that Arrowhead, NI and ABLE are one corporation and have alleged that ABLE and NI are corporate shams and are the alter ego of Arrowhead. See Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Petition, $ 13-14. If one corporation is simply the instrumentality of another corporation, the separation between the two may be disregarded and treated as one for the purpose of tort law. See Roberson v. PaineWebber, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 17, 998 P.2d 193, 201 citing Oliver v. Farmers Ins. Group, 1997 OK 71,48, 941 P.2d 985, 987. In Roberson, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found that the first element of civil conspiracy ~ the requirement of two or more persons conspiring - was not met because the plaintiff also pursued an alter ego claim, and the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of civil conspiracy. Here, as in Roberson, Plaintiffs have alleged ABLE and NI operated Arrowhead as sham corporations. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot show that two or more people agreed to conspire. b. Conspiracy to commit negligence is non sequitur and fails Plaintiffs’ underlying claim is that Defendants were negligent in the operation of the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. They claim Arrowhead, NI and ABLE acted “together in concert to unlawfully and tortuously operate a dangerous, unsafe and unsupervised drug and alcohol rehabilitation program at [Arrowhead] as alleged within the First Cause of Action [Negligence].” See Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Petition, | 60. In Clark v. Sloan, 1934 OK $74, 169 P.2d 263, 266, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that an “act becomes actionable when done 17 in pursuance of a combination of persons actuated by malicious motives.” Indeed, civil conspiracy is an intentional tort. See Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, 2008 OK 70, 188 P.3d 158, 175 citing Closs v. Goose Creek Consol. Indep. School Dist., 874 S.W.2d 859, 871 (Tex. App. 1994). Most eases hold that there can be no “conspiracy to commit negligence.” It is impossible to conspire to act negligently; therefore, Plaintiff's allegation of conspiracy to commit negligence is non sequitur and fails. See Sonnenreich v. Philip Morris Inc., 929 F. Supp. 416, 419 (S.D.Fla.1996); see also Rogers v. Furlow, 699 F. Supp. 672, 675 (N.D. Ill. 1988) C{whhat the plaintiffs suggest is a conspiracy to commit negligence, a paradox at best”); Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716, 719 n, 2 (Tex. 1995) (“[gliven the requirement of specific intent, parties cannot engage in a ci conspiracy to be negligent”); Sackman ¥: Liggett Grp., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 391, 395 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (“[BJecause a claim of conspiracy requires a showing of intentional conduct, ‘there can hardly be conspiracy to commit negligence.””); Campbell v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 496, 500 (W.D, Wis. 1985) (“Precisely how the defendants, or anyone else, can conspire to cause negligent harm or conspire to cause damages under a strict product liability claim is inexplicable.”); Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co. 514 F. Supp. 1004, 1012 (D.8.C. 1981) (“There is no such thing as a conspiracy to commit negligence or, more precisely, to fail to exercise due care.”) IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Oklahoma case law, the licensing arrangement between Arrowhead, NI and ABLE does not establish an agency relationship. A licensor may regulate its licensee in order to preserve the trademark, but evidence of control of day-to-day operations is necessary to create an agency relationship. Here, the purpose of the license agreement is to ensure system-wide standardization of the Narconon program in order to preserve the Narconon trademark. These Defendants do not control the day-to-day activities of Arrowhead, e.g., no power to hire or fire staff, no power to control business expenditures, no power to fix customer rates, ete. Nor can Plaintiffs’ evidence that NI and ABLE’s participation in the affairs of Arrowhead establish such domination of the daily business decisions of Arrowhead that the corporate form of NI and ABLE should be disregarded. Finally, Plaintiffs cannot maintain allegations of conspiracy and simultaneously allege alter ego, as the theories are inconsistent. Therefore, summary judgement is proper for these Defendants. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants Narconon International and Association for Better Living and Education International respectfully request the Court grant summary judgment to them and against the PlaintiffS, award Defendants the costs ineurred in this action and award all other relief the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, BEST & SHARP fas A. LeBlanc, #14768 Carrie B. McNeer, #22235 Williams Center Tower 1 One West Third Street, Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 582-1234 Facsimile: (918) 585-9447 Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon International and The Association for Better Living and Education International CERTIFICATI This is to certify that on this upo- 4 the above and foregoing instrument was mailed Charles L. Richardson, OBA #13388 Gary L. Richardson, OBA #7547 Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA #990 Jason C. Messenger, OBA 19887 Raymond §, Allred, OBA #11747 Richardson, Richardson, Boudreaux 7447 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: 918-492-7674 Facsimile: 918-493-1925 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John H. Tucker, OBA #9110 Colin H. Tucker, OBA #16325 Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable P.O. Box 21100 Tulsa, OK 74121-1100 Telephone: 918-582-1173 Facsimile: 918-592-3390 Attorneys for Defendant, Association for Better Living and Education International EOF MAILING ay of June, 2016, a true, correct and exact copy of to: James K. Secrest, II, OBA #8049 Tara Perkinson, OBA #19190 Jennifer L. Struble, OBA #19949 Secrest, Hill, Butler & Secrest 7134 South Yale Ave., Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74136-6360 Telephone: 918-494-5905 Facsimile: 918-494-2847 Attorney for Defendants, Narconon Arrowhead and Gerald D. Wotan, D.O., M.Ed. William Hobbes Forman Julio V. Vergara Scheper Kim & Harris, LLP 601 West 5" Street, 12" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-613-4655 Facsimile: 213-613-4656 Attorney for Defendant, Narconon Arrowhead Qoietrtk es 20 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY? Bag fis Cong STATE OF OKLAHOMA _ “iin, i _ ) ey Stung ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, ) individually, and as Natural Parents and") Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, ) Deceased, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,an_ ) Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ) ARROWHEAD; NARCONON ) INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ) ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING — ) AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a) Foreign Corporation; and GERALD.) WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed, ) PETITION CRP P case No, OQ - 2012-2 s ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COME NOW Plaintiffs, Robert Murphy and Tonya White, individually, and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Stacy Dawn Murphy, Deceased, by and through their Counsel of ‘Record, Richardson Richardson Boudreaux Keesling, PLLC, and hereby state and allege for their causes of action, the following: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, Robert Murphy, at all times relevant to the claims alleged herein, resided in Rogers County, Oklahoma and is a resident of Rogers County, Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff, Tonya White, at all times relevant to the claims alleged herein, resided in Tulsa County, Oidahoma and is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. EXHIBIT 4 3. Stacy Dawn Murphy, Deceased (‘Stacy” or “Stacy Murphy"), was the natural daughter of Robert Murphy and Tonya White, Stacy Murphy was a resident of the City of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, at the time of her death, 4. Defendant, Narconon of Oklehoma, Inc. ("NO"), is a domestic corporation, doing business in the State of Oklahoma as Narconon Arrowhead ("Arrowhead"), and is located in Pittsburg County. 5. Defendant, Narconon International ("NT"), is a foreign corporation, based in the ‘State of Califomia, doing business in Oklahoma, 6. Defendant, Association for Better Living and Education Intemational (“ABLE”), is a foreign corporation, based in the State of California, doing business in Oklahoma, 7. Defendant, Gerald D. Wooten, DO, M.Ed. ("Wootan"), is an osteopathic physician, who at all times relevant to the claims herein, practiced medicine in Pitisburg County, although he is a resident of Tulsa County. 8. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court for Pittsburg County, State of Oidahoma, as the parties are all residents of or do business in the State of Oklahoma and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 9. Venue is proper in the Pittsburg County District Court pursuant to OKLA. STAT. ‘Tir. 12 § 142, as this isa jurisdiction in which one or more of the Defendants reside and/or may be served. In addition, one or more of the acts giving rise to this litigation occurred in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, 10, Plaintiffs bave complied with the requirements of 12 0.8. § 19, and have attached an Affidavit, providing that they consulted with qualified experts and have obtained written reports from the experts regarding the allegations contained within this Petition. STATEMENT OF OPERATIVE FACTS ‘Nareonon Programs 11, Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above as though stated verbatim below. 12, Defendant, NI, is a foreign corporation that licenses, operates and/or otherwise directs drug rehabilitation facilities throughout the United States and around the world. Defendant, NI, is a subsidiary of Defendant, ABLE, an umbrella group that oversees the drug rehabilitation, education, and criminal justice activities of the Church of Scientology, including, ‘but not limited to, NI and NO. 13, Defendant, NO, is a corporate sham and illusion, is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant, NI, and is heavily controlled by Defendant, NI 14, Defendant, NI, is a corporate sham and illusion, is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant, ABLE, and is heavily controlled by Defendant, ABLE. 15. Defendant, Wootan, is the Medical Director of NO. As the medical director, ‘Wootan approves all treatments, and has the responsibility to monitor and educate NO staff to recognize when a patient needs medical attention. 16. Defendants, NO, NI end ABLE, all rely exclusively upon the written “technology” of L. Ron Hubbard (“Hubbard”), the founder of the Church of Scientology, to address the drug and alcohol rehabilitation needs of students enrolled in Narconon programs, 17, This is despite the fact that Hubbard had no known training or education in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. 18, Subsidiary programs like NO implement what they advertise as drug prevention and education programs, based upon the texts of Hubbard, and are forbidden to deviate from these texts. However, none of these programs incorporate known acceptable treatment for drug and/or alcohol addiction, 19. In order to use the Hubbard technology, NO must pay a license fee to NI and agree to use the Hubbard technology in a manner that is heavily regulated by NI. 20. Part of the Hubbard technology, as regulated by NI, includes the course materials and purification component used by NO to “rehabilitate” students. However, neither the materials nor the purification component are designed to advance alcohol and/or drug rebabilit Instead, the materials are comprised of eight different levels that are virtually identical to the course materials promoted by ABLE, none of which specifically address treatment for drug and/or alcohol addiction. 21. The purification component of this treatment consists of “The Sauna Program,” which is virtually identical to a required component of ABLE training for non-addiction individuals, 22. Another significant portion of the program is devoted to requiring students to undergo various “training routines", or "TR's", that focus upon conditioning students to either give or receive orders. The courses are “self taught” by students and overseen by counselors, who hhave little or no training other than that offered by NO, NI and/or ABLE, in administering the course themselves. 23. NO students r ive no counseling or education in drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation per se, and therapeutic discussion of drugs and their effects among students and staff is actually discouraged. Instead, NO's proponents believe that strict adherence to the Hubbard technology will address the rehabilitation needs of its students. NI routinely audits its subsidiaries to insure that the Hubbard technology is being zealously followed. 24, The NO staff is almost exclusively composed of former students of the Hubbard technology program. Students routinely graduate from the program and immediately become paid staff members at a nominal weekly rate, 25. The NO staff of former students lacks training and education in the fields of both . failing to properly train and educate NO medical staff. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, wanton and gross negligence and disregard for Stacy Murphy, she suffered serious personal injuries, death, other personal and financial damages, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, for which Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars. ($75,000.00). ‘Secon Cause oF Action ‘Wroncrut Drata 47. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as though set forth below verbatim, 48. Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief pursuant to Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 §§ 1051, 1053 and 1054, 49. Defendants’ actions and omissions were grossly negligent, willful, wanton and/or reckless in nature, and resulted in the suffering and death of Stacy Murphy, Plaintiffs’ daughter. 50. Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, willfully or recklessly failed to exercise appropriate care and breached the national standards of care that were required, in order to avoid injury to students of NO, including, but not limited to, Stacy Murphy, by: failing to provide reasonable and adequate security and supervision to ‘NOs patients, including Stacy Murphy; b. failing to exercise proper care in the selection, hiring and retention of its employees; ©. failing to provide adequate medical care and treatment to NO's patients, including Stacy Murphy. 51. Defendant, Wootan, willfully or recklessly failed to exercise proper care and breached the national standards of care that were required by members of his profession in good standing, in order to avoid injury to students of NO, including, but not limited to, Stacy Murphy, by: a failing to adequately monitor the treatment provided to NO patients, including, but not limited to, the use of high doses of Niacin; and b. failing to properly train and educate NO medical staff. 52. Stacy Murphy's death was directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ negligent, willful, wanton and/or reckless actions and omissions, 53. AS a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful actions and/or ‘omissions, Stacy Murphy and Plaintiffs, as Stacy Murphy's natural parents, have suffered damages in excess of $75,000, including, without limitation, medical and burial expenses, pain and suffering, mental pain and anguish, loss of companionship, grief, pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, and any and all other damages that are recoverable by common law or pursuant to 12 OS. § 1053, ‘Twp Cause oF ACTION: VIOLATION oF THE O1.AHOMA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 15 0S. §§ 751-765 54, Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth verbatim. 55. Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, by and through their agents, servants, contractors and/or employees, solicited Plaintiffs with false, fraudulent and misleading representations and/or assurances and/or promises which are contrary to and in violation of Oklabome’s Consumer Protection Act, 15 0.8. §§ 751-765. 56. As a direct result of the false, fraudulent, and misleading solicitation of Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, by and through their agents, servants, contractors and/or employees, Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of $75,000. Vicanrous LiaBmity & Cv. ConsPrRacy 57. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth verbatim. 58. Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, are corporations and can act only through their officers and employees. Any action or omission of an officer or employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment and/or authority is the act or omission of Defendants. 59, Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, collectively constituted two or more persons who combined to act together. 60. Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, acted together in concert to unlawfully and tortuovsly operate a dangerous, unsafe and unsupervised drug and alcohol rehabilitation program at NO, as alleged within the First Cause of Action, supra. 61. Defendants, NO, NI and ABLE, acted together in concert to unlawfully and fraudulently mislead Plaintiffs into placing their daughter, Stacy Murphy, in the care of NO, as alleged within the Third Cause of Action, supra. 10 PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 62. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragrepbs herein as if fully set forth verbatim. 63. The acts and omissions of Defendants, as set forth within the preceding paragraphs, demonstrate that Defendants-engaged in conduct evincing malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights. 64, As a direct result of Defendants’ malice and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintifis are entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, commensurate with the financial resources available to Defendants and sufficient to deter others who are similarly situated from like behavior. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Robert Murphy and Tonya White, individually and as ‘Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Stacy Murphy, Deceased, request that this Court grant to them relief in the form of monetary damages in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and grant them any and all further relief that this Court deems appropriate, including interest, attomeys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs further request punitive and exemplery damages, in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants and deter such reckless conduct in the future. n Respectfully submitted, ‘RICHARDSON RICHARDSON ‘BOUDREAUX KEESLI@;PLLC les L. Richardson, OBA No. 13388 Gary L. Richardson, OBA No. 7547 Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA No. 990 Jason C. Messenger, OBA No. 19887 Melissa A. East, OBA No. 21695 7447 South Lewis Avenue ‘Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136 (918) 492-7674 Telephone (918) 493-1925 Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert Murphy and Tonya White ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, ) individually, and as Natural Parents and”) Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. an) Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ) ARROWHEAD; NARCONON ) INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ) ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING — ) AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a) Foreign Corporation; and GERALD.) WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed., ) AKEIDAVIT OF TONYA WHITE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF TULSA = Affiant, Tonya White, being of lawful age, deposes and states as follows: 1, That I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action in which I am making claims of Professional Negligence against the Defendants listed above. 2, That I have consulted with qualified experts and I have reviewed the facts of my claim in this matter with said experts, 3. That said experts have provided written opinions stating that based upon the applicable facts, including, but not limited to applicable facts or other relevant material, a reasonable interpretation of said facts supports a finding that the acts or omissions of the 1 above-entitled Defendants constituted professional negligence. 4, That based upon the consultation with said experts, I believe that my claims of Professional Negligence are meritorious. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. aalenya Lobe, Tonya White (Printed) 1S White: Siemans Subscribed and swom to before me this et day of QCrtoler. 2012, ‘Notary Public My Commission expires on PLr vender ls 20120 ‘Submited by: ‘Rictuannson RicHARDsoN Bovoneaux Kcresune, PLLC {47 South Lewis Avene sa, Oklaboma 74136 8) 492-7674 Telephone 8) 493-1925 Poesimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, ) individually, and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased, Plaintiffs, vs. NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC, an Oldahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ) ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ) ASSOCIATION FORBETTERLIVING — ) AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a) Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D.—_) WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed., ) AEEIDAVIT OF ROBERT MURPHY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF TULSA } - Affiant, Robert Murphy, being of lawful age, deposes and states a follows: 1, That Iam one of the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action in which I am making claims of Professional Negligence against the Defendants listed above. 2. That I have consulted with qualified experts and I have reviewed the facts of my claim in this matter with said expert 3. That said experts have provided written opinions stating that based upon the applicable facts, including, but not limited to applicable facts or other relevant material, a reasonable interpretation of said facts supports a finding that the acts or omissions of the above-entitled Defendants constituted professional negligence. 4, ‘That based upon the consultation with said experts, I believe that my claims of Professional Negligence are meritorious. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. FoRinT Mnve phe 7 ‘Robert Murphy Printed) Robert Murphy (Signature) Subscribed and sworn to before me this “#& day of Cejober 2010, ha G fag ‘Notary Public ‘My Commission expires on “lryenber I$ 20 12 ‘Submited by: uciannson Tucwannsow BouDAEAUX KEESLING, PLLC 7487 South Lewis Avene “Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136 (18) 492-7574 Telephone (018) 493-1925 Faesmite ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFES IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, individually, and as the Natural Parents and Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased, Case No.: CJ-2012-265 Plaintiffs, Judge James D. Bland vs. NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign. Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NARCONON INTERNATIONAL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS, COMES NOW the Plaintifs, Robert Murphy and Tonya White (“Plaintiffs”), and for their responses to Defendant Narconon International's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, allege and state as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs make the following general objections to the First Interrogatories of Defendant, Narconon Intemational (“Defendant”). Each of the following objections is applicable, to the extent appropriate, to all and each one of the Discovery Requests. These general objections are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any specific objections that may additionally be made to any specific ‘very request. 1. Plaintiffs object to discovery requests that are not relevant to the subject matter of EXHIBIT 5 the pending action and those that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. PlaintiffS object to discovery requests that call for disclosure of information subject to the attomey-client privilege. To the extent the Interrogatories inquire, in whole or in part, into the communications between attomeys and clients (or between or among clients or clients’ representatives and their lawyers’ representatives) made in confidence for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services, all of such communications are protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. 3. Plaintiffs object to the disclosure of any information that was prepared in anticipation of litigation for trial by and for Plaintifis or any of his representatives that is otherwise beyond the scope of discovery admitted by court nile. 4, Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions contained in Defendant's discovery request to the extent those definitions and instructions might purport to impose duties or obligations in addition to, or inconsistent with, or different from the requirements of the Oklahoma statutes. 5. PlaintiffS object to Defendant’s discovery request to the extent Defendant purports to require Plaintiff to identify or produce information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's custody and control. Plaintiffs will identify or produce non-privileged information or documents that are presently in the custody and control of Plaintiffs. 6. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s instructions concerning the supplementation of Plaintiff's answers to the extent that those instructions might purport to impose duties or obligations in addition, or inconsistent with, or different from the requirements of the Oklahoma statutes, 7 Plaintiffs object to Defendant's instructions to the extent Defendant purports to Tequire Plaintiffs to identify and give detailed information concerning privileged documents, Communications or information in which such identification isnot required by Oklahoma statute, 8. Plaintiffs do not concede the relevancy of any discovery request nor the relevancy nor admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in answer thereto, The fact ‘hat information is provided or documents are produced in response to a particular discovery equest does not mean that it is probative of any particular issue in this matter, 9. If any work product or privileged document or information is inadvertently Produced in answer to these or other requests, Plaintiffs reserve this privilege with respect to the document or information, his right to object to inspection and copying the document or information, his right to demand the retum of the document or information, and his right to object to the admissibility of the document or information. 10. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses in accordance with Oklahoma Discovery Code until discovery is complete by final order of this Court. TI. Objection is made to discovery requests that inquire about “every” and “all” documents, statements, or knowledge and require Plaintiffs to produce “fully” othe extent that Such requests reach, or would require Plaintiffs to invade or reveal communications and things {hat are exempt. Plaintiffs further objects to such indiscriminately inclusive discovery requests 88 an improper attempt to limit its trial presentation atthe pretil stages of discovery. 12, To the extent that a discovery request requires an answer which impliedly adopts ‘he supposition ofthe request that Plaintiffs have acted or omitted to act inthe manner described, a answer fo such requests does not constitute admission or denial of such assumed facts, 13, To the extent the discovery requests inquire, in whole or in part, into the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintf’s altomeys working to assist ‘ial preparation or in anticipation of litigation, such is protected from discovery by the work product privilege. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify yourself and Stacy Dawn Murphy fully by stating yname, any other name you have ever used or been known by, date of birth, social security ‘number, former residence address and former business address, if any. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to providing their social security numbers or dates of birth of on the grounds of irrelevance, and not likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence, that it further is an unwarranted invasion of privacy and is not required by applicable law. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Tonya Lynn White, a/k/a Tonya Murphy, Tonya Studiner, Tonya Bejcek, born May 12, 1965, SSN is XXX-XX-7289, 8945 N, 138th E. Ave., Owasso, OK 74055, Robert Dean Murphy, wk/a “Murphy”, bom August 8, 1960, SSN is XXX-XX-5726, Stacy Dawn Murphy, a/k/a “Charlie Bear”, born March 12, 1992, SSN is XXX-XX-5740, 8945 N. 138th E. Ave., Owasso, OK 74055, INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If Plaintiffs or Stacy Dawn Murphy has ever married, identify the full name and present residence address of each current and former spouse, the period of each such marriage and, if the marriage was terminated by divorce, the case name and Court number of each such divorce action. RESPONS! ‘laintiffs object to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Stacy Murphy was not married at the time of her death, nor had she ever been married prior to her death, INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State whether Plaintiffs or Stacy Dawn Murphy has ever pled guilty to or was ever convicted of a felony crime, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement regardless of punishment, and if so, identify the crime, case mumber and jurisdiction RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State specifically and in full detail any and all communications (whether oral or written, or otherwise), that Plaintiffs or Stacy Dawn Murphy (including agents, employees and family members of Plaintiff and/or Stacy Dawn Murphy, if applicable) has had with Defendant Narconon International (including agents and employees of Defendant, if applicable) relating in any way, directly or indirectly, with the allegations and contentions in this lawsuit. As to each such communication, state: A. The identity of each such person or persons involved in the communication; B. The place, date and time of each such communication; C. The substance of each communication. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome and overly broad. Plaintifis further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it would require production of information that is subject to the attomey/work product privilege and to the extent. that it attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as speculative. Plaintiffs ‘were not with Stacy Murphy during the time she sought treatment at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, and they do not have personal knowledge of what communications Stacy Murphy had with Defendant. Plaintiffs also do not have sufficient information to know whether communications they had with Defendant Narconon of Oklahoma were communications made with persons associated with Defendant Narconon Intemational. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Response of Plaintiff Tonya White: On Monday, May 28, 2012, after viewing Nareonon’s website, I called Narconon and spoke with an employee named Yvette. I informed Yvette that I had a twenty (20) year old daughter that was addicted to oxycodone and heroin. I informed Yvette that I had been impressed with Narconon’s 76% success rate. Yvette informed me that Narconon had a great rehab program and that most “students” live drug free lives after graduating from their program. Yvette informed me about the details of the sauna program, and explained that Narconon had a very nice facility located on the lake. I was then transferred to Heather, who told me that she was a former graduate of Narconon’s program. Heather informed me that she was in her late thirties, and she had been addicted to oxycodone for many years. She stated that she had tried other drug rehab programs but those Programs were not successful, She stated that Narconon’s program works well because the sauna Program allows the student to sweat the drugs out of their system thereby removing any desires they had for drugs. Heather also informed me that students of the Narconon’s program take high doses of Niacin while completing the Sauna program to help get the drugs out of their system Quicker. I inquired about the detox program. Heather told me that there was a doctor on staff ‘twenty-four (24) hours a day, and that Narconon had a great staff in the detox area with special training. Heather told me that after Stacy finished the detox program, she would be given a roommate, and Narconon’s staff would teach Stacy how to live a drug free life. 1 inquired about Scientology, and asked Heather whether Narconon taught the religion of Scientology. Heather stated they did not teach the religion of Scientology, but that they only used the moral and ethical teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. Heather also informed me that there were buses that could pick up the students and take them to a couple of local churches on Sunday mornings. I asked Heather if she would talk to Stacy, and Heather said she would be happy to. Heather gave me her cell phone number and told me that Stacy could call her at anytime. I asked Heather how long Narconon’s program was, and Heather told me that the program lasted for a few months, but the Sauna ‘program lasted 4-6 weeks. This was the end of that conversation. Heather called me back a few days later, and wanted to check on Stacy. I informed Heather that Stacy was trying the outpatient program at Laureate, but that I was still trying to persuade Stacy to check herself into a drug rehabilitation center. On Friday, June 1, 2012, I called Narconon and left a message. A Narconon employee named John Shafer returned my calls. | informed Mr. Shafer that Stacy was ready to check into Nerconon. Mr. Shafer said that was great, and asked me several questions about Stacy’s drug use, health, address, ete. I asked Mr. Shafer how much Narconon’s program would cost, and Mr. Shafer told me he would check with my insurance company and give me a call back. Either Mr. Shafer or Yvette called me back and informed me that my insurance company, Cigna, would pay for all the costs except for $3,500. I asked if they were sure that she would not have to pay more than $3,500. I was assured that I would not have to pay more than $3,500, and I was informed that 1 could make payments. I asked if they would agree to a $1,000 down payment, and they agreed. also spoke with Heather that same day, and told Heather that I was excited that Stacy agreed to go to rehab. I informed Heather that I would be dropping Stacy of at the Narconon Arrowhead facility on June 4. Heather told me that she would try and call Stacy later that day because she needed to ask Stacy some medical questions before she checked in, During the time Stacy was at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, I spoke with Sandy ‘Schwarts, who I was told was Stacy's family counselor, every day during the first week Stacy was in Defendant's facility. Ms. Schwarts provided updates to me on Stacy’s treatment, and she gave Stacy messages that I asked her to give. 1 also had to schedule all visits through Ms. Schwarts. After Stacy got out of the detoxification unit, I spoke to Ms. Schwarts « couple times a week to get updates regarding Stacy’s treatment. Ms. Schwarts informed me Stacy was going through the Sauna program for most of that time. Ms. Schwarts told me that Stacy would not be feeling well because the drugs were being pulled out of her system, and that Stacy would likely beg me to come and pick her up. Ms. Schwarts told me I needed to stay strong and to ensure that Stacy continues on, and finishes the Sauna program. Ms. Schwarts said I should practice tough Jove with Stacy and refuse to go and pick her up. Because Stacy only agreed to stay 4-6 weeks at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, Ms. Schwarts and I had discussions about trying to get Stacy to stay for the entire program. I was referred to David Shanhossein for help on getting Stacy to stay for the entire program. I met with Mr. Shanhossein during a visit to the Narconon Arrowhead facility, and we spoke on the phone a few times after that visit, I spoke with David Shanhossein, the Rehabilitation Director, and Jeff, an employee involved with the Sauna program, about granting Stacy a 24-hour leave. I spoke with Mr. Shanhossein on July 12 and July 16 on his cell phone, (832) 858-1170. I spoke with Jeff on July 15 on his cell phone, (772) 486-5144. 1 spoke with David and Jeff to determine how to try and talk Stacy into staying for Defendant's entire program. Mr, Shanhossein agreed to let Stacy skip the book part of the program, and take a 24-hour leave of absence. Response of Plaintiff; Robert Murphy: I spoke with Gary Smith the day after Stacy died. We discussed numerous things, including a shift change on the night Stacy died, how many staff members were on duty when Stacy died, Narconon’s policies and procedures, Stacy’s personal property and belongings, etc. INTERROGATORY NO. $: Identify every person who you believe holds information supporting or relating to the basis for the liability asserted against this Defendant and/or your claim for damages herein and for each such person, state the following: A. the identity of the person; B. the knowledge ed by you to be possessed by said person; Cc the identity of all communications or writings which support your belief that such person has or possesses this knowledge, RESPONS) Plaintifis object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case still in the early stages of discovery. Plaintiffs will comply with their obligation to list witnesses in accordance with a Scheduling Order entered in this ease. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this Tesponse as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs identify the following witnesses: ‘Tonya White, Chris White, Robert Murphy, Susan Murphy, Jesse White, Gary Smith, and Sandy Schwarts. Additionally, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to any individuals identified in Tesponse to these Interrogatories, INTERROGATORY NO. 6: With respect to each basis of liability asserted against this Defendant, state each act or omission of this Defendant, officers, agents and/or employees which serves as the basis for the alleged liability. RESPONSE: ‘aintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as Premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. ‘The information sought is still subject, to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the Tequested information at a later time, Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to Paragraphs 12-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 43-44, and 48-50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contends that Defendant supervised, managed and controlled the operations of the Narconon Arrowhead facility, and, therefore, negligently provided drug and alcohol rehabilitation services to their daughter, Stacy Murphy, causing her death. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State, with specificity, the amount of damages you seek against this Defendant pursuant to the lawsuit you have filed, including medical expenses, past and future; lost earnings, past and future; loss of earning capacity, physical pain, past and futures ‘mental pain, past and future; permanent disability; and any other related expense. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome, 10 overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs responds as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to their Initial Disclosures, which have been submitted pursuant to 120.8. § 3226, INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify by name and address each educational institution attended and/or individual or entity by whom Plaintiffs and/or Stacy Dawn Murphy was employed for the past ten (10) years, including the dates of said education or employment, the ‘ype of work performed, the amount of compensation received (either by week, month or year) and the reason for leaving said educational institution or place of employment, if applicable, RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Stacy Dawn Murphy graduated from Owasso High School in May of 2010. Stacy ‘worked at Pet Shop in Owasso from November of 2007 until early 2009. Stacy then babysat for Jason and Stacy Avery until June or July of 2010. In August of 2010, Stacy got a job at Applebee's in Owasso and worked at Applebee’s until she took a leave of absence to enter the Nareonon Arrowhead facility. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Ident ‘each person Plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial, and state as to each such person: A. B. RESPONS: ‘The subject matter on which he/she is expected to testify; The substance of the opinions to which he/she is expected to testi A summary of the grounds for each opinion; ‘The qualifications of the expert witness, including a list of all publications authored by the expert witness within the preceding ten (10) years; ‘The compensation to be paid to the expert witness for the testimony and preparation for the testimony; and AA listing of any other cases in which the expert witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. aintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is compound, vague and overly broad. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery and specifically reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds. Plaintiffs will comply with their obligation to list expert ‘witnesses in accordance with a Scheduling Order entered in the case. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify, and state with specificity, every court case to which you and/or Stacy Dawn Murphy have been a party. As to each occasion, identify the full case number, the county where the suit was filed, and the disposition of the case. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information, 12 Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition that Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. is a corporate sham and illusion and is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant Narconon Intemational and is heavily controlled by Narconon International. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogetory as vague, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiff will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiff objects to this Intecrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiff that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to a form License Agreement between Narconon International and Narconon Centers opened throughout the United States, which is attached hereto. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant entered into a similar agreement with the Narconon Arrowhead facility. Plaintiffs contend that said agreement gives Defendant complete control over the Narconon Arrowhead facility, and, the Narconon Arrowhead facility is, therefore, merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 11 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition that Narconon Intemational is a corporate sham and illusion and is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant The Association for Better Living and Education International and is heavily controlled by The Association for Better Living and Education International. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiff furthers object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject. to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintisf will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiff that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to a printout of Defendant, The Association for Better Living and Education International's Internet website, which is attached hereto. Additionally, Plaintifis contend thet, according to the license agreement identified in response to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 11 hereinabove, The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational owns the trademark/service mark “Narconon” and closely assists Narconon International with the monitoring of all operations at all Narconon facilities. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that ‘Narconon International is merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant ‘The Association for Better Living and Education International, and is heavily controlled by The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they 4 believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 12 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition that Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. is heavily regulated by Nareorion International. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time, Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintifi’s that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs responds as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to a form License Agreement between Narconon International and Narconon Centers opened throughout the United States, which is attached hereto. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant entered into a similar agreement with the Narconon Arrowhead facility. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 13 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition that Narconon International “fraudulently misrepresented and falscly advertised the Narconon Program” and “concealed and continue to conceal the Narconoa Program's true relationship with ABLE”. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a Jater time, Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follo Plaintiffs refer Defendant to their responses to the Interrogatories included hereinabove. ‘More specifically, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant fraudulently represents, and falsely advertises, that it has over a 70% success rate, that a medical director is on staff 24/7, that Defendant has licensed and certified counselors on staff, and that the sauna program is a successful method of drug rehabilitation, Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 14 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please state with particularity exactly how this Defendant caused the wrongful death of Stacy Dawn Murphy. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this 16 Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to the allegations in their Petition and to their Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, and 11-14, included hereinabove. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 15 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: For the past ten (10) years, please state each occasion that Stacy Dawn Murphy has been treated by or consulted with a practitioner of the healing arts, whether physical or psychological, or has been admitted (whether as an out-patient, bed-patient or ‘emergency patient) to any healthcare institution and/or treatment facility of any sort, state the following: A. The name and address of cach person from whom Stacy Dawn Murphy has sought treatment. B. The name and address of each healthcare institution and/or treatment facility from ‘whom Stacy Dawn Murphy bas sought treatment; C. The dates of each such consultation, treatment or examination; and D. A deseription of the condition for which each such consultation, examination or ‘treatment was made or rendered. RESPONSE: To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Stacy Murphy sought treatment from the following healthcare providers during the past ten (10) years: 1, Cheryl A. Boyd, D.O., 8439 N. 117" Bast Avenue, Owasso, OK 74055, (918) 272-8989; 2. Christopher Kotz, MD, 13600 E. 86" St. North, Owasso, OK 74055, (918) 272- 9313; 3. Stephanie Hell, DO, 10512.N. 110" E, Avenue, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, (918) 376-8900; 4. Patricia Hartmuller, LPC, LMFT, LADC, 8801 N. 145" E, Avenue, Suite A, Owasso, OK 74055, (918) 274-7311; 5. Katie Scott, LPC, MS, 1347 N. Yale Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115, (918) 740- 4005; 6 Mary F. Hardy, LPC, LADC, 9726 B. 42” Street, Suite 108, Osage Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74146, (918) 740-2815; 7. Laureate Psychiatric Clinic, 6655 $. Yale Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (918) 481- 4000; and 8. Dr. Stephen Kovacs, DO/Dr. Bryan Marsh, MD, 13616 E. 103" Street, North, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, (918) 274-8555. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify every pharmacy at which Stacy Dawn Murphy had a prescription filled during the last seven (7) years prior to her death, 18 RESPONSE: To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Gabriel Graves had a prescription filled during the last seven (7) years prior to her death atthe following pharmacies: 1. Drug Warehouse in Owasso, Oklahoma, 2, Walgreens in Owasso, Oklahoma. 3. Walgreens in Owasso, Oklahoma. 4. Reasors in Owasso, Oklahoma. 5. Wal-Mart in Owasso, Oklahoma, INTERROGATOY NO. 18: If your answers any of Narconon International’s Requests for Admissions was anything but an unqualified yes, please state the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: In regards to Plaintiffs’ denials of Defendant's Requests for Admissions Nos. 1-3 and 7, Plaintiffs refers Defendant to the objections included in their Responses to Defendant's First Set of Admissions to Plaintiffs. In regards to Plaintiffs’ denials of Defendants’ Requests for Admissions Nos. 4-6, Plaintiffs state that they lack sufficient information and aowledge to know whether any contact they and/or Stacy Murphy made with persons associated with Stacy's treatment at the Narconon Arrowhead facility were Persons associated with Defendant. 19 Respectfully submitted, RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX KEESLING, PLLC Gary L. Richardson, OBA #7547 Charles L. Richardson, OBA #13388 Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA #990 ‘Melissa A. East, OBA #21695 7447 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136-6808 (918) 492-7674 Telephone (918) 493-1925 Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Thereby certify that on the 21d day of April, 2013, a true and correct copy of the above ‘and foregoing was deposited in the United States mail Postage prepaid, to: Thomas A. LeBlanc Carrie B. McNeer BEst & SHARP Williams Center Tower I One West Third Street, Suite 900 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Altorneys for Defendants, Narconon International and The Association for Beter Living ‘and Education International James K. Secrest, II Tara Perkinson Don W. Danz Secrest, HILL, BUTLER & SECREST 7134 S. Yale, Suite 900 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon of Oklahoma, INe., Wb/a Narconon Arrowhead and Gerald D. Wootan, DO, M.Ed. 21 VERIFICATION \ STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) | d ss. | countyor Tulsa) | | 1, Tonya White, have read the foregoing Interrogatory Responses to Defendant, Narconon Intemational and verify thatthe information provided therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. | FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. whe Age ‘Sworn to before me this day of March, 2013. fiom iow 1 i I / ae ‘NOTARY PUBLIC | eae vty Connon pine 8/15 /Ulo \ GES BE SS “i WS ‘neu | VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) — ) county or _lulsa } I, Robert Murphy, have read the foregoing Interrogatory Responses to Defendant, ‘Narconon International, and verify that the information provided therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. dot I Hert _ Robert Murphy fe Sworn to before me this_&4 day of March, 2013. apenas 20. -Th Aameton for eer Ung abd Eco ata The Association for Better Living and Education International “The Assocltion for Geter Living and Education (ABLE) has the purpose of raversing the soci dlecey that threatens our socltias by asovng Ue worst problem that plague ran today — drugs, ‘rime, Uiteracy and immoral. This s done by supporting, pramating and ccordaing the pogroms of faur organtzatons dedicated ta socal beterment™ a ee * ‘Narranon Jatemetins! ‘Start Mareonon Group Goan Store Ceminon International ductona aerate ' : , Start a Ceminon Group ‘rupee pai © Analed Scholtes Internationa oon ‘Start an Appliad Scholastics Activity (GemalReforn Hotere + TheWay w Hepsiness Foundation naseaeenmnes ne Seema tart The Way te Happinaas Result Matera {Intemational vk Uns ‘hile eoch ofthe above four activites (arcanon, Criminn, Applled Schlastics and The Wey to Happiness Foundation) eru non-proft emanlalots in thle own ght and each have itr own ‘Suds & te Papas (goals and missions, ABLE Is the umbralrargenzaton that serves es a eaordinating body, provides (ur Caley Supprtas _Buldance, support tnd promation and ensues that these programs sre iciowa, made avalsble and ‘azch entre communities an fone roving the Ives of people Ley serve. canes nr es an populations thereby Improving the lves of people Uy serve ‘Gal ator {ABLE I secular (non-relitous), non-profit corporat entity wit Rs intematloral headquarters in bee tbs Angeles ond offices on each condnent ‘plod Setatnetoe rimiaca Rerconen The Way to Hepiness ALE Aseadation: Sain Becime Member Membership Betts eptomeationy) ‘AE~ Th fsaeston fo Dter ga toner Aatvete ye nowaabisony Sten euro Droprams to ferdars Sn stick eve thot retore tae ected pe es hesin er ‘ermunies, feabo cuertona setings wah worketa at cial Studens ofl ages ond funn etcnls Grong futures ing Steve stand {rang ropa ta ‘ppled Seriartes ip them cent mare cers voting to rahouliatve ‘ucts preface vrnmene cee amas aoe ae iver nave en ined, many ver ade Before arin: Une ‘oy er alo or ater Se ere ‘Rao ites go nto te dain ese di dea Ornate Send rane Nome | Ato Sere ane Senate | Vue Pera Menke | Catt (9 200-2012 ALE near Ags Rese, Fr Tada man prea nae ‘Te rst mora ade tated wiely on mel cn ost, id rstore integra {eu torumanidn The apts ‘eireion bse the woe me erent in ower 200 Seamer hr en posed fs ane Eaten dente tower sb nl pie ngetete 2rsa asa ‘Rorrpoon has 2 uniaue position in tha rehablitaton ld. eof adic a relotivelypalnless, ‘rugrfree witirovel ~ something that most adele and profesional conadermpocale= ‘Alfonse Paredes, WD, UCLA School of Medicine Founded tn 4vtzna State Prison over three decades ago, Narconon hes enabled drug abusers to fYercome thlr aden and lead stable, productive and etal Wes The cnttavacaly grotlig Nareanon netwark currently comprises mare thon 420 canteen 0 countien (Over the past 45 years tarconon programs worldwide have {Duched the ves of hundreds af thousands a ndvivels a helped tp reunite tham with ther fares by efectvelyTreelng them am She grip of drug abuse and adtion, An easenal—and unlque~lemnant ofthe Narconon approach to ‘ehobilttion is 2 sauna sweat aut detoxification proprom that | enables Narconon shidents to ulna crug easues farm thelr BS] bocies ond became fea from poraistent dog cravings. Tiss done {through exerese, nutrition, and sweating indy, lavas eounae with plenty ot water and replocement minerals femmes pee a oan ett ae esa arias aba sep geen ane ge det eta gee ES em aa fearon on SSPESLRO NGS Soca ee ga pom prea ‘Morconon stents also complete a sates of fe skids courses that. ble thesn to understand and remedy the Ife skuatiens daok ‘ciated tir da nine. aoe ees page tot2 ‘ron otra = BL beer 2rens nasa arnon drug prevention eduction programs have presente he uth about dean tha ans nee ura pease Folens ave vated te eee oes proorome. ‘The Nareonon programa offer: * Resident and out patent substance abuse treatment * ‘Substance abuse prevention education * Taine for substance abuse counselors a drug-fee withdrawn, treatment and prevention stratenies ‘Narconon sites: ‘+ Hoceonon international Website * Nesconon Azzwhand: Warcanon intemal Training centr for ug rehtistlon and prevention, * Marconon Vita Bay: Nerconon eu rehab centr Northern Cltomi, * Moonen Searle: Harconon drug rebabitaon westrent centri Gang, Atlant, ‘iso ofering drug edueaton ty schools and ether community groups. * SlenizakNectsnen: Drug education schoo programs. Finds of Herconen i producing {ducatonal videos onthe subject of dr adtion and prevention. © Marssnon Herein Adicio Yeo: The Nareoron drug rehob program cffers help snd Informtion about heroin adcton, Home| Ac Sti ews | Gon | Vokes} Mogae | bes | Cnet (92004-2013 A9LE erator AU ie ase, fread norton, ‘uu stn c/prors/naonnndxhp rage 20t2 ‘LICENSE AGREEMENT |MMARCONON INTERNATIQNAL/CENTER--MARKS) 20__by and between, ‘THES AGREEMENT is made thie NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, s California non-proft corporation having a place of burines ot 7060 Jollywooe Boclevard, Suite 20, Loa Angels, Colornia S002 (ecelnaftr telerred to at NARCONON INT) ane dey of (CenierNamay (Adis (hereinafter referred to a¢ “CENTER. RECITALS A, Lsfsyite Ronald Hubbard hereinafter fered 1095 “LREP) woe the discoverer and the eveopes ofa tain philosophy an techniques fr betterlog fe conditon of mankind ard exelshing @ ‘Svization without war, exime or insanity, and described that plophy end thse eciniqass (bereinattes refed to 29 “ubbard Philosophy and Technology’ in numerous writen and teeaded spoken works (hereinafier referrad to a8 the Hubbard Waltnge). B, Assocation For Better Living And Estucation (Mereloabee refed to 2¢ ABLE) wea formed for the purpose ofsapervising and mordinaing the promotion and dlaerinaion of the Muar! Piecopy tnd Technology in arena Belds by organizations formed tous he Hubbard Phlsophy and Tecalgy (0 those felds and specifeally for the purposes of (2) improving end tevallzng sooty, especially ho Belds of | education, rug’ rehabillation, and the rehabibntan of crmlnae by ti tee ped opp toation ‘fmathods and information applicable to such purposes, (2) making tlsng avotable to cnganieeone with ke purposes, (coordinating the activities Of such organizations foward eftecive atone in such Ses and (a) enerig that Infomation end. matedals which stash to the improvement of eoely in such fis are beondlydiesaninstad, & ABLE is the owner of certsin trademacks and serves marks, Incuing the mark Narconan” ‘nd certain design macks (herinafec"the Masia") for which one or tate regheratons hove boon btaned i some countsiny of the plane, and for whic applistons for egitatcns have beer oe willbe, ‘nude in other counvies ofthe planet. list of the Marks and repletion is attached ae Bebe, 1D. NARCONON INTs an organization whidh uses the Hubbard _tilosophy ee technology in gular flelds, wth emphasis onthe eld of drug reabiltston nd education, ated has Be Neponablbly fauperviing and coordinating the we promotion and clasenaian of the Fbkers Phleeopns and ‘Technology by its organizations in his Bld. NARCONGN INT hes boon licensed by ABLE to he Macks and to mbeere the ue ofthe marks to cher organizations inthe Held of dng refabiltaton ond education. | E NARCONON INT sad CENTER wich to onter ino a formal agreement defining the rights end ‘esponsbiites of each of thom with respect to use ofthe Marks by CENTER and lis staff 3d employees, AGREEMENT 1 Rectal ‘The rostals are hersby mate par this Agrmant and ae aciowledyed to be ue. 2 Gont 2. NARCONON INT hereby grants to CENTER the naexcosive sight ond Ueense to ase the Macks Incannection with services in thefield of drug ablaton apd education, and on and in connection wits roved products that are related to thes services. CENTER shall use the Marks excusively for atiinble and eduestonal purpous that are described in Seton 01() ofthe Intemol Revenue Cade of 1505 (hereinafter referred to a6 “Section SUUC)S)" 1b This grt does not tnclade the ight ro grantoublcanses of ny kind. «This grontdoes not incu any right to use the name LRH, o ny pat theroo§ fn ores 2 trademark orservie mack, and CENTER expressly agreasnot fo do sa. CENTER may, howeves, use the ‘ame of LR, and parts thereof, in acorae aca reference tom and fo his Works, 1. Consideration 1. Asconsideetion fr the grant herein made, end 363 way to provide financial support for the ednetionsl and charitable parpnsss of NARCONON INT, CENTER sl pay to NARCONGN INT & weekly es equal fo Ten Percent (10) oFis gross income, incu donations reelved fo mipport x services, sfler deduction of cons ony of materials purchased from NARCONON INT or ABLE, investment ncome, commissions veved farreferals to other organletiony zfuncs ant bounced checks (hot have ‘previously been included in gots incor). b_As edaliional consideration foc the grant hereln, CENTER acknowledges, 29 2 constion of ths case, CENTERS prior end continuing commltment othe full and fahlal pecfonmanca ofthe promises ‘made heroin, pariculely including the promise to actively vee the Maan advancing and. clatontmaing the Hubberd Philosophy and Technology in accordance wlth he Babbar Watings fe CENTER Meld sok ‘promote and prowet the Hubbard Pilosophy and Technology under and ln connection wit the Mark ond thename of LE 4. Payments and Accountings 2. Waly Faymanls. Liens fes shall bo ducte NARCONON INT when monies sujet to cent fees re received by CENTER and shall be pal wealy lo NARCONON INT or on authorized coninental ations) lfie which is designated by NAICONON INT, sccompanied by an ialonnal statement indenting the basis ofthe payment, together with ich other information as may te rested by NARCONON, INT, All payments underthis Agrinawnt shall be payable in United Stites comeney. CENTER shall be sponsible for handling ell cureney and wachange cotaels. ‘Bonin and Records, CENTER shall kogp end maintsin acurte books aed cords pstatnng to all etiites for which CENTER is lcened under this Agresmant, ln aoffient detail fo permit esleulston, ‘and verification sf Ticansefexs payable under tls Agreement © Quarts Statements, CENTER shall prepare sntements accounting for. al leese fxs de to NARCONGN INT under this Agreement daring each ofthe flowing periods In¥ avery your From Janisry 1 to March 8 Peom Apel to Janet; rom July J toSepaember 0; From Gxobar is Deer, CENTER sill mali each soch stalement fo NARCONON INT within thiety (90) doys after the close ofeach peiod. Hoch Quarterly Statement shell zaprt the gross Income, The amounts ethcod a st Of ‘ulecilo purchased from NARCONON INT, Investment inne, donations by “carport. decors aed officer, commision recived for rfecals 0 other erganizadons, refunds and bouneed cect (hat have previously” been inciaded in gus income), the amount of Home fect pad to NARCONON INT ots uthorlaed continental ar national office dating the quarter, the amount of Ticnae fees. dam NARCONON NT but unpsid and such other information as may, Eom Hane to time, be requested by NARCONON IV, Bach sitement shall be cerified as eue and conrect by CENTER, 2. Quast Payments, Any amounts shown tobe due on the Quartedy Statement shalt be paid with he Quarcrly Statement. Should such payment notbemade within thirty (0) days folowing the ‘doseof the quarts, the amount due shall bear intrest from the ls day of te goats Be whlch fee de ‘uni pald atthe rate oF ten percent (0%) por annum ‘overpayment was made. . ms ‘Upon waten opt, NARCONON INT my examine the tenis and mrds of CENTER wilch reste i the action of CENTER umdarth "Agron foe sf veeatlon ofthe Heznse fen daar pid hereunder, Sach ear shal be avalos ac fn Enyens Koper fay Cary Stone, caro es rine of five percent (5) oc more with reepect fo amp. gintedy vilament, CENTER shal neestons NARCONGN itt oral samonabte co af Seca ‘5. Conta and Supervision 8. NARCONON INT shall have te right t9 dlaseminate standards, specifi and guidlines ‘or the proper use und displ of the Mati and for the propernantiademarc ose of the aime SCL ond CENTER and all of {ts sf and employers shall flow and abide by all sh stadends, specienions and guidelines, 13 CENTER shell not use or assocste any of or permit the use or esseatlon of ny of thie Marks swith any gaods crservices, or with any othur activity, that ttn cones with or hone Use Fuabent Philosophy ‘and Tedhology, or the Hubber Witings, and ahall rot use any ofthe Masks once onnection with ry matter hat snot par of, or related to, Une Hubbard Pilosphy ond Tecnology & NARCONON INT ond ABLE shall hove the right lo motor all operations of CENTER with respect (© wis of the Mar, inspect ll books, meards and adits pertaining to tar of the Marks, nd ‘ceive sample specimens and sunmaris of Utorature, publitions and produes wing the Macks, in Seatonabl, ruber anc wih cesorable fequency 1 sure compliance With al standards speisions ‘nd guidelines NARCONON INT and “ABLE_may, if NARCONON or ABLE ever deems it neemmry oF tudvisblo, and 8 cormecive mission to CENTER to camect any. deviation fom the aimacrds, ‘specications or guidlines of NARCONON INT, and CENTER shall compensate NARCONON INT oF ‘ABLE, 2g the case may be for all of is reasonable cuts and expenses of the corective ton cng Feasonable travel and living ext of personnel and reasonable charges forthe tine of such personnal NARCONON INTS or ABLE’ standard rates for such comedive aan. 2. Guna Ogaton of CER (CENTER agrees that 3, CENTER shall conduct ts activities In acerdance with the technfesl and ethical standards proscribed by the Hubbard Writings and In accordance with allatandords, speciieaGons and guldeiny of NARCONGN INT pursuant oth Agisenwnt. b. CENTERshall devote its best efforts and dusdiigence to the promotion and dissemination of ‘he Hubbard Philophy and Technology n the Bold of drug rehabllition ond edsaion under the Mase. © CENTER shall nat engage in ony actfvty that le In conSlet with or hostile to the Hubbard ‘Writings, or Hest to or derogatory to the image oF LRH. 7 Yofomement a. NARCONON INT and ABLE sre responuible forproistion of the Marks and the name of ERE. egninat any unauthorized or improper us and shall have the final autho foc such enforcement CENTER shel report fo NARCONON. INT al unauthortsd o lopropet va hak comes fit tenon tnd shall sender all asistance to NARCONON INT and ABLE that may be sequin eating or teinating such use CENTER shall have dlvect responsibilty foe mootoing te woe ofthe Mats and the same ot UURHT in CENTER’ ore, and for determining whather any unaithoriaed cr improper ute aacazzing in euch ‘ce, Bt shall not initiate any enforamant acon regueding the Marks oc te rame of LRH witha tae express walln oppeoval of NARCONON INT or ABLE. 8. Indemny, CENTER acinowlegen te fll ceponstilily for the eles) ant proper weet the Merk and the Hubbard Philosophy ond Technolgy aconing Be Huard Wings and coven hae eer nor ny of is stalf or employes wl maka ny delat against NARCONEN INT. ABLE he suo of LR, ray pesonasicaied with NAKCONON INT or ABLE. CENTER shall dei an hol hesnlo, NARCONON INT, ABLE the sicasors of LRH, and all of NARCONON INTs ag ABLES ayes employees, repetitive, eur and eslgns, mond put sil ably caine nal acho of any kin, and cose, nctingattraya fees, ‘whch aie Gono eit to Lhe use of Uw Mas rele Finke rom any ofthe service or produlssepodate! with he Mork 9. Namue.And Ownership CENTER esinowledges and ages tats >. This Agreamant repocs and supersodesall previous agremints wilh CENTER with renpect othe ‘Mavis, and that CENTER has no rights of any Kod with respect io any of thase marks except te rights ‘hat ere granted by thle Apress 1 The Marks shot) not become pat ofthe assets of CENTER, end all ume by CENTER of sy ofthe Marks in is mame ond otherwise, sand shall bepurmuon to thla Agreement lon, and shall support the Dwnership ofthe Marks by ABLE with the sume affect asi ADLE had lslf made Bat uy and I thie Agreement aver Ip terminated for any reason, CENTER shall immediately cexse all use of tach of the Maxis, nis name ane oherwize, and shall forever rele fom further uae fany of the Marks, unless nd snl formally restated heres. 10, Tenmand Tarmination 2. The Brat term of tis Agreement shall extend tram the dale inthe inkohiclory paragraphs hereof until December i, 2003 end this Agroument shell renewed entorateny nt the expeaton ef ths first t and wack adional tenn for autcesive additonal Se (5) year fem unless and tl onect the pertes gives noice of non-zanewal within the nlnty (80) days next preceding th expiration of eny tomy or flea esone:| tenninaied In w manner provided hein, by, inthe event of failure by CENTER to perform any of lis obligations under this Agreement NARCONON INT may, inatidtion to any other remedy tay have, lanmlosie this Agreement by ‘iving CENTER thity (80) days wltion notice apeciflng th nate ofthe fale to perform Ie lentty ff the [party to be terminated, ond the Intended efective dae of eamination, ot leat thirty (0) eins Intec, The termination noice will be effective onthe sated efectve dale nies, prior to that date, the {allure to pecform las been conrect, Ati diveetion, NARCONON INT may lnmediatly suspend the ght of CENTER to ureany of the Marks if CENTER (1) has ceased sing the Macks or (2) Te mieeing any of the Moris ln 2 menner that ples the valdty or enforcbilly of any ofthe Macks in danger under eppllale ws. 4. This Agrekoent shall tense Immedtoly If CENTER becomes bankrupt a insolvent os Uquldated or disoived, or becomes controlled, disetly or iil, by any individ or entity, which in {judgment of NARCONON INT or ABLE is ex to compromise the chaste rad equllable purposes fF ABLE or the iechnial and ethca)stondarsesablished by ABLE for use of the Masks. 1. Naot Agancy [Nether paty shal be denmed! oe the agent, joint venturer, or partner ofthe other, and aether shall have dhe authority to atin bohalf ofthe ether in any mote, incudingecoeplance of ascvce of procees 12 Gaveming Law ‘Ths Agreement shall be interpreted according lo the laws ofthe State of California, Unted Sats of Ametica, 1; Asignbily and Binding Bet This Agreement{s personal to CENTER, and thesights and abigetions hereunder shall not be sasignable otherwise transfers by CENTER, in whale orin pat, without the peor writen approval of NARCONON INT In the avant of any atempted assignment or wonsier ty CENTER of is ghia shader he Agreement, whether voluntary ot ioveluneny, allright of CENTER with respect to tha Mati shall mediately tecminate. a. This Agreement shal bebinding upon and for thebenafit ofthe successor, casigna tn legal ‘representatives of NARCONON INF, & Each seference to LRHshallbe deemed tp inchoate allsoceesors tn interest of LRH Signe in efpicat at Los Angele, Cabifornia on the date frst above wtan, NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, (CNARCONON INT?) i (Signature of Corpor Ota) corporate Tile "CENTERF [Center Name) (Signature af Capos OB) Cosporate Tie STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) es ) AFFIDAVIT OF RUBINA QURESHI 1, Rubina Qureshi, being of lawful age and having been first duly swom, state upon oath as follows: a {00379907} 1 am the Vice President and a corporate representative of the Association for Better Living and Education International (hereinafter “ABLE”. ABLE is 2 non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in California. As a non-profit organization, ABLE does not issue shares or own stock in any other organization. ‘Narconon International and Nareonon of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead (hereinafter “Arrowhead” are not a “subsidiaries”, division or departments of ABLE. ABLE does not manage, supervise or control the day-to-day activities of Arrowhead. ABLE receives weekly statistics from Narconon International to monitor the statistical trends and determine how well the Nareonon program is being delivered. ABLE does not control or direct the wages or working conditions of Arrowhead staff, and ABLE does not supervise Arrowhead’s staff's daily work routine. ABLE’s corporate directors and officers do not serve as directors or officers for ‘Narconon International or Arrowhead. In 2012, during the time that Stacy Murphy was a student, Arrowhead was not undercapitalized and had a positive cash flow. See Exhibit I, Gary Smith’s deposition as Arrowhead’s corporate representative, pgs. 130-131:19-2. Thus, ABLE did not pay the salaries or loses of Narconon International or Arrowhead. EXHIBIT 9. Additionally, ABLE’s corporate books and bank accounts are maintained separate and ‘apart from Narconon International and Arrowhead. 10. ABLE prepares financial statements separate and apart from Narconon Intemational and Arrowhead. 11. ABLE has no power to control the daily maintenance of the Arrowhead facility or any of Arrowhead’s business expenditures, Further, ABLE does not fix Arrowhead’s consumer prices or demand a share of its profits, other than the license fee due to Narconon International pursuant to the license agreement. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT, Ritbina ‘Subscribed and swom to me this _/ $ day of, alue +2016. {00379907} [A notary public or other officer completing this |certificate verifies only the identity of the individual |who signed the document to which this certificate lis attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or alidity of that document. State of California County of LOS Angeles Hh ‘Subscribed and swom to (or before me on this (3 day of_Jice 2016 by Rubing Qurcace proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the Person(s) who appeared before me, ‘COMM. 42138200 etary Pubic -Caitoria ‘Signature LICENSE AGREEMENT SICENSE AGREEMENT {ABLE/NARCONON INT--Macks THIS AGREEMENT is made this LG day of Lrecere oe, 1988, by and between: ASSOCIATION FOR ZETPER LIVING ano EDUCATION, 3 California non-profit cocporation having a place of business ac 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90028 (herein- after referred to as “ABLE"), and NARCONOW INTERNATIONAL, 5 California non-profit semeerasion having a place of business at 7260 Hellawzod Beat ete ey po, los Angeles, California 7260 Holhjwood Blvd. Suite 220, (hereinafter ceterred to as "NARCONON INT"). Recitals % befayette Ronald Hubbard (hereinafter referred co as “ERH™) is the discoverer and the developer of a certain philos- ophy and techniques for bettering the condition of mankind and ead ol clviZisationtwithouc sary erin 2 insanity, and has described that philosophy and those techniques (hereinafter referred to as "Hubbard Philosophy and Technology") in numerous weittea and cec ed spoken works (nereinacter referred co as “the Hubbard Weitings") EXHIBIT HERES p) B. ABLE was formed for the purpose of supervising and Coordinating the promotion and dissemination of the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology in secular fields by organizations Formed to use the dubbard Philosophy and Technology in those fields, and specifically for the Purposes of (1) improving and revitalizing society, especially in the fields of education, drug rehabilitation and the rehabilitation of criminals, by the use and application of methods and information applicable to such purposes, (2) making training available to organizations with like purposes, (3) coordinating the activities of such. gs Soest fece ive) actions: tnicuch f.t1a04 <4 a) ensuring that information and materials which are useful to the improvement of society in such fields are broadly disseminated. G- ABLE is the owner of certain trademarks and service marks, including the mark “Narconon” and certain design marks (hereinafter “the Marks") for which one or more registcations have been obtained in some countries of the planet, and for vhich applications for registrations have been, or will be, made in Ce ————C—= tions is attached as exhibit 1. ®. NARCONON INT is an organization which uses the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology in secular Fields, with emphasis on the Eield of deug cehabilitation and education, and has the vesponsibility of supervising and coordinating the use, Promotion and dissemination of the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology by organizations in this field, B- ABLE and NARCONON INT wish to enter into a forma) ge eee) PS) Ciohter and vespors: stiri et each of them with respect to use of the marks by NARCONON IN? and erganizations that are sublicensed by NARCONON INT, Agreement 1. Recitals the recitals are hereby made part of this agreement and are acknowledged to be true, 2. Geant a. ABLE hereby grants co NARCONON INT the nonevelu- five right and License to use the Macks in connection vith Services in the field of dcug rehabilitation and education, and eoeea ny contect (on tht appcved| crease eet ae these services, ®. This grant includes the right of NARCONON INT to Grane nonexclusive sublicenses to organizations who covenant and agree, in writing, to Eul£ill all of the obligations of this Agreement with respect to the Marks, including the obligation to use the Marks exclusively for purposes that are described in Section S0l(c)(3), ABLE eserves the right to approve all sublicense agreements before they become effective, ¢. This grant does not include any right to use the name o£ RH, or any part thereof, in or as a trademark or service mack, and NARCONON INT expressly agrees not to do so. NARCONON INT may, however, use the name of LRH, and parts thereof, in accurate factual reference to him and to his works. 3. Consideration The only consideration required of NARCONON INT and its sublicensees for the grant herein made by ABLE is the acknowledgement, as' a condition of this license, of the prior and. continuing commitment to the full and faithful performance of the Promises made herein, particularly including the promise to actively use the Marks in advancing and disseminating the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology in accordance with the Hubbard Writings in NARCONON INT's £ield, and to promote and orotece the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology under and in connection with the Marks and the name of LAH. Control and Supervision a. ABLE shall have the right to disseminate standards, specifications and guidelines for the proper use and display of the Marks, and Eor the proper non-trademark use of the name o£ LRH, and NARCONON INT and all of its staff and employees shall follow and abide by all such standards, specifications and guidelines b. NARCONON INT shall not use or associate any of, or permit the use or association of any of the Marks with any goods or services, or with any other activity, that is in conflict with or adverse to the. Hubbaré Philosophy and Technology, or the Hubbard Writings, and shall not use any of the Macks on or in connection with any matcer that is not part of, or related to, the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology. c. ABLE shall have the right to monitor all opera- tions of NARCONON INT and its sublicensees with respect to use of, the Marks, inspect all books, cecords and facilities pertaining to use of the Marks, and receive sample specimens and summaries of literature, publications and’ products using the Marks, in reasonable numbers and with reasonable frequency to insure compliance with all standards, specifications and guidelines. S. General Obligations of NARCONON INT NARCONON INT agrees that: a. NARCONON INT shall conduct its activities in accordance with the technical and ethical standards prescribed by the Hubbard Writings and in accordance with all standards, specifications and guidelines of ABLE pursuant to this Agreement. b. NARCONON INT shali devote its best efforts and due diligence to the promotion and dissemination of the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology in the field of drug rehabilitation and education under the Marks. 6. Enforcement a. ABLE is vesponsible for protection of the Marks and the name of LRH against any unauthorized or improper use, and shall have the final authority for such enforcement. NARCONON INT shall repoct to ABLE all unauthorized or improper use that comes to its attention, and shall render all assistance to ABLE that may be required in correcting or terminating such use. b. NARCONON INT shall have direct responsibility for monitoring the use of the Marks and the name of LRH in NARCONON INT's Eield, and for determining whether any unauthorized or improper use is occurring in such field, but shall not initiate any enforcement action regarding the Marks or the name of LRH without the express written approval of ABLE. If directed by ABLE, NARCONON INT shall take all necessary and proper action, including legal action if directed by ABLE, to protect the Marks against unauthorized or improper use in NARCONON INT's field. ABLE will join with NARCONON INT in such legal action, when necessary or appropriate. Costs of such legal action will be allocated between the parties in reasonable manner to be agreed upon in view c£ the circumstances. 7. Indemnity NARCONON INT acknowledges its full responsibility for the ethical and proper use of the Marks and the Hubbard Philosophy and Technology according to the Hubbard Weitings, and Covenants that neither it nor any of its staff or employees will eee aa acetmets ele Nel successors) oficna” arian +n associated with ABLE. NARCONOW INT shall indemnify and hold harmless ABLE and the successors of LRH, and all of ABLE's agents, employees, representatives, successors and assigns, from and against all liabilities, claims and actions of any kind, and costs, including attorneys’ fees, which atise from or relate to the use of the Macks by NARCONON INT, or relate to or arise from any of the services or products associated with the Marks. 8. Names And Ownership NARCONON INT acknowledges and agrees that: 2. This Agreement replaces and supersedes all pcevi- ous agreements with NARCONON INT with respect to the Marks, and that NARCONON INT has no rights of any kind with respect to any of the Marks except the rights that are granted by this Agreement; The Marks shall not become part of the assets of NARCONON INT, and all use by NARCONON INT of any of the Macks, in its name and otherwise, is and shall be pursuant tc this Agreement alone, and shall support the ownership of the Marks by ABLE with the same effect as if ABLE had itselé made that use and c- T€ this Agreement ever is terminated for any reason, NARCONON INT shall immediately cease ail use of each of the Marks, in its name and otherwise, and shall forever refrain from further use of any of the Marks, unless and until formally reinstated hereunder. 9. Tecm and Termination The Eirst term of this Agreement shall extend Erom the date in the introductory paragraph hereof until December 31, 1992, and this Agreement shall be renewed automatically at the expiration of the first term and each additional term for successive additional five (5) year terms unless and until one of the parties gives notice of non-renewal within the ninety (90) days next preceding the expiration of any term, or unless sooner terminated in a manner provided herein. In the event of failure by NARCONON INT (or any sublicensee of NARCONON INT) to perform any of its obligations undec this Agreement, ABLE may, in addition to any other cemedy it may have, terminate this Agreement as to the party that has failed to perform its obligations, by giving that pacty thirty (30) days written notice specifying the natuce of the failure to perform, the identity of the pacty to be terminated, and the intended effective date of termination, at least thicty (30) days dater. The termination notice will be effective on the stated effective date unless, prior to that date, the failure to perform has been corrected. © At its discretion, ABLE may immediately suspend the right o£ NARCONON INT, or any sublicensee of NARCONON INT, to use any of the Marks if NARCONON INT or the sublicensee (1) has ceased using the Marks or (2) is misusing any of the Marks in a manner that places the validity or enforceability of any of the Marks in danger under applicable laws. @. This Agreement shall terminate automatically as to NARCONON INT or any sublicensee of NARCONON INT which becomes bankrupt or insolvent or is liquidated or dissolved, or becomes controlled, directly or indirectly, by any individual cr entity which, in the judgment of ABLE, is likely to compromise the charitable and equitable purposes of ABLE or the technical and ethical standards established by ABLE for use of the Marks e. TE this agreement ever is terminated as to NARCONON INT, ABLE may assume all of NARCONON INT’s rights and responsibilities under sublicense agreements with sublicensees of NARCONON INT, or may terminate those sublicense agreements. 10. Lack of Agency Neither party shall be deemed to be the agent, joint venturer, oc partner of the other, and neither shall have the authority to act in behalf of the other in any matter, including acceptance of secvice of process. 11. Governing Law This Agreement shall be interpreted according co the laws of the State of California, United States of america. 12. Assignability and Binding Effect a. This Agreement is personal to NARCONON INT, and the eights and obligations hereunder shall not be assignable os otherwise transfeccdble by NARCONON INT, in vhole or in pace, without the prior written approval of ABLE. ta the event of any attempted assignment or transfer by NARCONON INT of its rights under this Agceement, whether voluntary or involuntary, all Fights of NARCONON INT with respect to the Macks shall imme- diately terminate. b. This Agreement shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the successors, assigns and legal representatives of ABLE c. Each reference to LRH shall be deemed to include all successors in interest of LRH ~10- Signed in duplicate at Los Angeles, date First above written. California on the ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND_EDUCATION (raBet S S¥eretary NARCONON INTERNATIONAL C°NARCONOMINT™) A‘B:LE. INTERNATIONAL ‘ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LING AND EDUCATION . 9 January 2003 Narconon International 7060 Hollywood Blvd, ste 220 Los Angeles CA 90028 Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm that Association for Better Living and Education International (ABLE Int) authorizes _ Narconon International ("NN Int") to use "NARCONON" as an element in its e-mail address and domain name and to further authorize the use of "NARCONON" in the e-mail address and domain name of licensed subsidiary organizations. ‘The use of this mark is granted on the condition that ABLE Int must ‘approve, in advance, each e-mail address and domain name, and also must approve, in advance, the design and contents of any website to be installed under such domain name'and any change made in such design or content. Approval of a website will require the presence of a proper trademark ownership notice including: NARCONON is a registered trademark of Association for Better Living and Education International and is used with its. permission. This authorization is effective immediately and is cancellable at ABLE‘s option at. any time. Upon cancellation, you may be required to transfer any registration of any e-mail address or domain name that you may have adopted pursuant to this permission to ABLE or to such other organization as ABLE may designate. Further, you may be required to immediately cease all further use of the e-mail address or domain name. 7065 Hollywood Boulevard * Los Angeles. California 90028-6041 USA. Telephone: (323) 960-3530 * Fax: (323) 960-3537 + E-mail: ableinfo@able.org * www.2ble.org ABLE Is a non-profit public beneMt corporation. Please acknowledge receipt and a returning the accor greement: by signing and mpanying extra copy of this letter. Sincerely, Association for’ Better Living and Education International A:B- LE. OENEtEe Ineo teow eet) Tee toma ‘ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LivNG ANO EDUCATION HEE ERUING AND EDUCATION 13 March 2003 Narconon International 7060 Hollywood Blva, ste 220 Los Angeles CA 90028 Ret Additional Mark Gentlemen: Please find attached as Exhibit A additional Marks that are to be included as part of thé licensed Marks under the License Agreement (ABLE/NARCONON--Marks) . This Exhibit is to be attached to your License agreement. Please notify all personnel who, are responsible for proper use of trademarks and Service marks that these Marks have been added to the License agreement. A letter similar to this jetter, is to be sent to each center licensed by Narconon International, authorizing them to add these Marks to their sublicense. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and acceptance of the additional Marks by signing and returning the accompanying extra .copy of this letter. ely Gwenda“Byrne Secretary 7065 Hollywood Boulevard * Los Angeles, California 90028-6041 USA. Telephone: (323) 960-3530 + Fak: (323) 960-3537 + mall: ableinfo@able org » wwovabl.org ‘ABLE Is a non-profit public benefit corporation. A:B-L:-E. %ue MEE eames een ASSOCIATION FoR BETTER Living ANo EDUCATION Dissem Supe Narconon Int 27 March 2003 Dir TM Reg & Enf ABLE Int CC: ED Nareonon Int DLA Narconon Int <<————— DIED Admin Narconon Int D/ED Prod Narconon int ED ABLE WUS ‘VP Prod ABLE WUS ABLEEUS Pjt UC Re: NARCONON logo Dear All, Good News! This is to inform you that the Narconon logo is now registered in the US. This means that we now have full protection of the mark sed that to show this we need to use the ® with this mark. 065 Hollywood Boulevard « Los Angeles, California’ 90028-6041 USA‘ ‘Telephone: (323) 960-3530 + Fax: (323) 960-3537 + E-mal,sbleinfo@atla org * wew.able.org ABLE Is @ non-profit public benefit corporation, Page 1}, IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY ‘STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, individually, and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased. Plaintiffs, -vs- case No, ¢J-2012-265 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. , an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; Narconon International, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, 0.0., M.Ed., Defendants CONSOLIDATED WITH: MATTHEW HOLTEN and suzaN HOLTEN, individually, and as Co-Administrators of The Estate of Hillary Holten, Deceased, Plaintiffs, ove- case No. CJ-2012-224 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; Narconon International, a Foreign Cozporatios ASSOCIATION. FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.0., M.Ed., DEPOSITION OF RUBINA QURESAT Defendants 16 v7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 mS Page 22 MR. RICHARDSON: And we would offer that into evidence as Exhibit Number 2. Thank you. (By Mr. Richardson) Looking at No. 2 on Exhibit 1 real quickly, it says, "All facts and details surrounding Defendant's involvement and/or participation in the operation of the Narconon Facility in Canadian, Oklahoma. Tell me what the answer to that question is from your standpoint. We're not involved in the daily operations of Narconon Oklahoma. That doesn't say "daily." We are not involved in the operations of Narconon Oklahoma. You don't have anything at all to do with what goes on there; correct? (Shakes head back and forth.) Other than they use your promotional materials and your logos? They use our program and they have a license with Narconon International that gives them the right to use our marks. And ABLE advertises for them on the website? I wouldn't call that advertising. You can look at <2c80008-7199.4 Page 36 We On teed 2 AL Yes, I was. 3 Q. That ABLE gave Narconon International in 2012 about ‘ a half million dollars? 5 AL Right. 6 Q. Do you agree with that? 7 A. I don't recall the exact figure, but it was a a substantial amount. 9 Q. Somewhere in that area? 10 A. Somewhere. 11 Q. Why was that done? 12 A. Because Narconon International and what they are 13 doing is within the mission of ABLE International. 4 Like part of our mission is to promote and spread 15 the good works of our programs, and if one of the 16 organizations that is licensed by us needs help and u asks for us, then we would review it and if it 18 merits it, we would grant some money or make a contribution or donation, so the board decided to do 20 that. Is the L. Ron Hubbard program -- is that a good 22 word to use? 23° A, The Narconon program. 24 Q. Well, I'm trying to find out what percentage of 25 ABLE deals with L. Ron Hubbard material versus ee | €2c80000-7199-48de-b800-805740b E35 10 ul 12 33 a4 as 16 vv ae is 20 a 22 Page 38 What was the purpose in 2012 that Narconon International needed your contribution of $500,000? I don't know if it was a specific purpose that I recall, but it was -- I'm trying to remember. I mean, that's a lot of money; wouldn't you agree? It's a decent amount of money, but foundations and charitable organizations make contributions all the time; it's not unusual. Well, what other contributions can you recall that ABLE has made to Narconon International, say, in the last four years? To Narconon International I don't recall, but I know we made contributions to Applied Scholastics International in tens of thousands of dollars. we had teachers getting trained from St. Louis. We are just about to do -- actually we started on Monday a summer program with disadvantaged kids, so we made contributions for all kinds of things. What about any of the individual rehab centers? Has ABLE made any contributions to Narconon Arrowhead as an example? We've made contributions to Narconon Arrowhead for promotional activities. I know we made some contributions for something to do with their insurance. I don’t recall exactly. 10 a a2 13 4 15 16 uw 18 19 20 a Page 40 the Internal Revenue Service for the past five years." Were you aware that you were to come prepared to provide that information? I mean I studied our 990 forms. We get certified audits; they are online. To answer that question, tell me over the last five years what those records show that ABLE has given to Narconon Arrowhead in donations in the last five years. I'd have to give you an approximate amount, because I don't remember everything. I read a lot of documents. That's fair. I would say it would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand, maybe a little bit more. But you can provide us documents -- Sure. -- if your attorney allows you to that will show us the exact figure; correct? If my attorney allows me, absolutely. Okay. What do you understand the relationship to be between Narconon International and Narconon Arrowhead, for example? {-2c80008-7190-48de-b408.8087400f0430 u 12 13 1a 1s 16 7 a9 20 2. 22 23 2a 25 Page 41 Well, as far as ABLE is concerned, as I said, we license Narconon International the right to then sublicense, so then Narconon International sublicenses to Arrowhead and that that license has rights and privileges that it gives to both ABLE International and Narconon International primarily that we can inspect how the program that we developed is being delivered, as can Narconon International inspect to make sure that the program that was developed is being delivered as intended. I assume that somewhere along the line you learned that our law firm has filed three death cases against Narconon Arrowhead, International and ABLE? correct? Yes, I did. When did you first learn that? The lawsuits? Yeah -- yes, instead of yeah. I suppose soon after you filed or when we were being asked to be deposed, which was around January or something when we were being asked to be deposed. When that type of information comes to ABLE, does ABLE have any need, that you know of, to learn what happened that caused or allowed these deaths to occur? 28000-7199 4540-b600-$e57400f0430 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, Individually, and as Natural Parents and ‘Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased, Plaintifis, vs. NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.O., M.Ed., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) d ) ) MATTHEW HOLTEN and SUZAN HOLTEN, as co-administrators of the Estate of Hillary Holten, Plaintiffs, vs NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. D/B/A NARCONON ARROWHEAD, an Oklahoma corporation; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a foreign corporation; and THE ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign corporation, Defendants. {00311325} Case No, CJ-2012-265 Judge Jim D. Bland CONSOLIDATED WITH: Case No. CJ-2012-224 Judge Thomas M. Bartheld CONSOLIDATED WITH: EXHIBIT HE SHIRLEY GILLIAM, individually, and as the Natural Mother of GABRIEL GRAVES, Deceased, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of GABRIEL GRAVES, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CJ-2012-295 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION OF BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed, Judge Jim D. Bland Defendants, ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL ‘RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS COMES NOW the Defendant, Association for Better Living and Education International (ABLE), and for its responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Requests, states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1, Defendant objects to these requests to the extent they attempt to impose obligations upon Defendant other than those imposed or authorized by the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the rules of this Court, or other applicable Jaws and rules that govern the scope and manner of proper discovery. 2. Defendant objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ requests are improper because Plaintiffs have failed to allege any claims against Defendant with sufficient particularity to Justify discovery or to provide Defendant with proper notice of the claims against which it is expected to defend itself or provide such discovery. {00311325) 2 Defendant objects to these requests to the extent they seek the disclosure of information or actual production of documents which relate to Plaintiffs’ asserted legal theories of recovery which have no basis in state or federal law and therefore are overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4, In making these objections, Defendant does not in any way waive, or intend to waive, but rather preserves and is preserving, intra alia: A) all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of any document that may be produced in response to the requests, or the subject matter thereof; B) all rights to object on any grounds to the use of any document that may be produced in response to the requests, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings, including the trial of this or any other matter; and C) all rights to object on any ground to any request for further responses to any other document requests. 5. Nothing in responses or objections herein constitutes an admission of the veracity of any facts or implications stated or assumed in any of the requests. No offer (or future offer) to produce documents shall be construed as a waiver of any objection, privilege, or exception. Any offers or commitments to provide documents or other information in response to Plaintiffs? requests are subject to the entry of appropriate protective orders. The inadvertent production of privileged or otherwise protected documents shall not constitute a waiver of any claim of privilege or other protection, 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ requests on the grounds that they: A) are overly broad, B) are vague and ambiguous, C) are oppressive and harassing, D) seek documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the {00311325) 3 discovery of admissible evidence, E) impose undue burdens that far outweigh any probative value of the documents sought, and F) are needlessly and excessively intrusive, burdensome, and oppressive. 7. Plaintiffs’ requests do not, by their terms, exclude privileged or protected communications from the documents to be produced. Defendant, therefore, objects to each request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of any information that is privileged or protected for any reason, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney- work product doctrine, the joint defense or common interest privilege, the privilege for information obtained in the course of conducting studies regarding the self-evaluation privilege, trade sceret privilege, or any other applicable privilege, reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and/or exemption from discovery. 8. Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent they seek to impose upon Defendant the burden of engaging in massive new or duplicative document production when the requested documents are more easily and appropriately obtained from individuals or organizations other than Defendant, and when readily available alternative sources exist. 9. Defendant objects to these requests to the extent they require the production of proprietary, trade secret, confidential, or other commercially protected information without the protection and implementation of procedures that will ensure the continued confidentiality of such information. 10. The foregoing general objections are incorporated into each of the following responses to the requests, and the general objections shall be deemed continuing as 10 each request and are not waived, or in any way limited, by the foregoing responses. {00311325} 4 11. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional objections to these requests as appropriate and to supplement these objections as appropriate, RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that You are involved in the decisions on the hiring of staff members at Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Arrowhead. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that you purchased the land that the Narconon Facility is located at. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR.ADMISSION NO. 14: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that You must approve all promotional materials before Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead, disseminates them, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead, must obtain approval from You as to its Internet websites before the sites "go live." RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Denied REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that You dictate the contents of ‘Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead’s, advertising materials. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that You publish all training materials for Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Denied in part. ABLE ‘admits it publishes some training materials for Narconon Arrowhead, (00311325) 5 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify any and all training materials that You provide to, or have provided to, Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead. ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: objections, ABLE sells the following materials to Narconon of Oklahoma: Opening a Successful Narconon Center Running an Effective Narconon Center ‘Narconon Basic Staff Hat Narconon Course Supervisor Course ‘Narconon Case Supervisor Course Narconon New Life Detoxification Program In-Charge Course Narconon Correction Officer Course ‘Narconon Withdrawal Specialist Course Narconon Therapeutic TR Course Narconon New Life Detoxification Program Delivery Manual Narconon Learning Improvement Course Narconon Communication & Perception Course Nareonon Ups & Downs in Life Course Narconon Personal Values and Integrity Course Narconon Changing Conditions in Life Course Narconon The Way to Happiness Course (00311325) 6 Objection, This request is vague, neither relevant nor INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Describe, in detail, Your involvement in the hiring, disciplining and firing of the staff members at Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead. ANSWER TO _INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Objection, This request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, not limited to a reasonable time frame or scope and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ‘Subject to said objections, ABLE does not hire, fire or discipline Narconon Arrowhead staff. On one occasion in late 2012, an ABLE representative noted that an Arrowhead employee was ‘unqualified for a staff position. On information and belief, Arrowhead subsequently investigated and terminated the staff member. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Produce all documents or other materials evidencing any “rudiment” inspections, "tech" inspections and/or "rudiment" reports done by You in relation to the services provided by the Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead facility during the past five (5) years. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not limited in time or scope and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection is made insofar as the request could potentially be requesting information which is protected by the attomey-client or attomey work product privilege, or information otherwise protected from disclosure by the joint defense and common interest privilege. Further, Defendant objects to the extent the records requested are protected by HIPAA, {00311325} 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Produce an accurate copy of all materials that You have provided to Narconon of Oklahoma, d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead to run its business and/or to train its employees, including, but not limited to, the Narconon Basic Staff Hat, Running an Effective Narconon Center - Skills for Operating a Successful Drug Rehab, and the Narconon New Life Detoxification Program Delivery Manual. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not limited in time or scope. Subject to said objections, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 23. Responsive documents will be made available for inspection. Respectfully submitted, BEST & SHARP GUL ‘lw TI is A. LeBlanc, #147¢ Carrie B. McNeer, #22235 Williams Center Tower | One West Third Street, Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 582-1234 Facsimile: (918) 585-9447 Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon International and The Association for Better Living and Education International (00311325) 8 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING This is to certify that on this 24th day of November, 2014, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing instrument was mailed to: Gary L. Richardson, OBA #7547 Charles L, Richardson, OBA #13388 Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA #990 Jason C. Messenger, OBA #19887 Melissa A. East, OBA #21695 RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX, KEESLING, PLLC 7447 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 492-7674 Facsimile: (918) 493-1925, Attorneys for Plaintiff John H. Tucker, OBA #9110 Colin H. Tucker, OBA #16325 Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable P.O. Box 2110 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121-1100 Attorneys for Defendant, Association for Better Living and Education International {00311325} James K. Secrest, Il, OBA #8049 W. Michael Hill, OBA #4213 Tara Perkinson, OBA #19190 Jennifer L. Struble, OBA #19949 Secrest, Hill, Butler & Secrest 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74136 ‘Telephone: (918) 494-5905 Facsimile: (918) 494-2847 Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon Arrowhead and Gerald D. Wootan, D.O., MEd. VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 88: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) 1, RS, Timothy Lomas, being of lawful age and first duly sworn, sta ‘That Ihave read the above and foregoing Answers to Interrogatories and am familiar with the contents thereof, and the statements therein contained are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Mh = KS. Timothy Lomas, Director of Special Affairs ‘The Association for Better Living and Education International he SUBSCRIBED and swom to before me this 24" “day of November, 2014 by R the person who appeared before me, S-Timottry Lows, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be CM CRT My Commission Number: #63 Raioruae, ‘My Commission Expires: Re COMM 18a 0 oY Puc caLrowal ae aD ‘cone execs ree a 06 (cosi0367) Page 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OBER? MURPHY and TONYA, WHITE, individually, and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of stacy DAWN MURPHY, Deceased. Plaintifes, NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, ‘d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, @ Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.0., M.Ed, Defendants CONSOLIDATED WITH: MATTHEW HOLTEN and SUZAN HOLTEN, individually, and as Co~Administratozs of The Estate of Hillary Holten, Deceased, tiffs, case No. cy-2012-224 NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC, an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. NOOTAN, D.0., M.Ed. , DEPOSITION OF CLARK CARR Defendants. EXHIBIT HG (05467210-¢189.4225-b900-1 Page 9 L Narconon, Inc., and later on that center separately 2 incorporated from Narconon International. 3 Q. Who did you replace as president at Narconon 4 International? 5 A. John Dufé. 6 Q. What is the purpose of Narconon International? 7A. Narconon International received a trademark -- or 8 assigned a trademark license with ABLE International 9 to having the right to sublicense individual 10 organizations around the world to use the secular in uw drug rehabilitation and prevention methodology of 12 Mr. Hubbard and -- so we have the -- that authority, 13 and then the responsibility to monitor the standard 4 delivery of these materials, and also to promote the 1s mark and the methodology worldwide. 16 Q. If you would, explain to us what you mean by 7 responsibility to monitor. 18 A, Well, the methodology that we're dealing with human 19 beings and there is a number of steps to the 20 methodology and this method is not the same as other a methods, and therefore, when someone signs a license 22 to use and apply the Narconon method, what we expect 23 is that's what they will do and not mix it with 2a something else or fail to do those standard actions 25 which get the good results that we expect. SEE es | (05467210-c169-4225-b00c-tab9Gad000 18 16 vv ae 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Page 10 So Narconon has the right to do inspections, also administratively to look at their -- at the center at their books and so forth. When you say look at their books, what books are you talking about? At their financial -- their financial books as necessary. And what is it about looking at the financial books that has anything to do with whether they are applying the process correctly when it comes to the treatment of the students? Well, there are two aspects to having a successful Narconon that will survive: one is delivering very good products, the other is that the center has to be operating solidly and using their monies responsibly, and sometimes it's necessary to look at the books and see that, you know, standard common sense financial actions are being taken by that center. And that's based on the agreement to use the trademark? What is in our trademark license is that we can inspect the books if we need to. And how often does Narconon International inspect the financial books of the different Narconon (0546721a-c180.4225-b0e-tabs6adea00 16 Ww ae as 20 a 22 23 25 Page 11 locations? Infrequently. Meaning? only as necessary. And what would rise to the level of necessary? We receive weekly statistics from all of the centers around the world. If a center is showing declining financial statistics and that's not being repaired and it looks serious, then we may want to take a look at their books and see what's going on. So what is it that Narconon International receives on a weekly basis from the different locations? Statistical report of their operation. What's included in a statistical report? The Narconon organizing board has a number of different divisions and departments and so every level of every action of operation is staticized, so we get a report of how things are going based on all of the different posts that are in the organization. It's standard for all of the Narconon centers around the world. What are the different areas that are examined within the statistical report? Their delivery of services, kinds of services, hours of delivery, reports about the training of the 054672 1a-c180-4225-b000-1 Page 12 1 staff, you know, the various aspects of the delivery 2 of the program, some financial statistics, income, 3 and some indication about marketing actions that 4 they are doing. I got delivery of services, hours of delivery, 6 reports of training the staff, financial statistics 7 regarding income, and marketing they are doing. 8 Anything else that the weekly report from the different locations will provide to Narconon 10 International? 11 A. It's rather detailed, but that's essentially it. 12 Q. For the different Narconon locations, has there 13 been a decline recently in the number of students? | “4 MR. LeBLANC: Object to the form of the 18 question. I think it's -- as I recall, the subject | 16 of the notice was intended to be limited to u Arrowhead. I'm not sure that -- w MR. GARY RICHARDSON: That's the way I wrote my question. 20 MR. LeBLANC: I'm not sure Mr. Carr was a schooled and prepared to address census of every 22 Narconon worldwide, so 23 MR. RICHARDSON: I'11 withdraw it. 24 MR. LeBLANC: Your dad and I are on the same 25 page. 872 10-0160-4226-b90e-tabsGadstane Page 29 2 Q. (By Mr. Richardson) Are you looking at the exhibit 2 that you used in your preparation? 3A. Yes, Exhibit A for Narconon International. 4 Q, I just want to make sure I gave you the right one. 5 MR. LeBLANC: It's actually Plaintiff's 6 Exhibit 1 and the topics are Exhibit A. 7 Q. (By Mr. Richardson) It is on page 8. The first 8 one is Defendants’ involvement in the decision to 9 hire or fire an employee at the Narconon facility. 10 What information do you have in regards to aa that first question? 12 A. All of this is written up in the How to Run an 13 Effective Narconon manual. a4 MR. LeBLANC: I don't think that was his 1s question. I think his question was does 16 International -~ is it involved in -- L THE WITNESS: No, he didn't ask that. ae MR. LeBLANC: -- the decision to hire and 19 fire. 20 I actually didn't understand the question. Would 2 you reask the question? 22 (By Mr. Richardson) Yes, sir. Is Narconon 23 International involved in any decisions regarding 24 employees at the Narconon Oklahoma facility? Not directly. et (05067212-0169.4225-b60e-tabssadotat Page 30 LQ. What about indirectly? 2 A, We don't hire or fire employees at Narconon 3 Arrowhead. 4 Q. Do you have any involvement in decisions in regards } 5 to firing or hiring employees at Narconon Arrowhead? 6 A. Only as described in How to Run an Effective 7 Narconon. 8 Q. And what would that be? 9 A, That manual describes the procedure for which a 10 permanent employee can be fired and if an employee L considers that that procedure has been violated, he w can ask that Narconon International review the 13 procedure. So we do not decide on the hiring or 4 firing, but we can, if there is a -- asked to review as that procedure, we can do so and that's all. 16 Let me make sure I understand. If an employee at WwW Narconon Oklahoma has been terminated, that employee can, through a process, bring that to the attention 19 of Narconon International to have Narconon 20 International become involved? a They -- yes. 22 Q. And is that written anywhere in the two agreements 23 that Narconon International has with Narconon 24 Oklahoma? 25 The trademark license or the Business Associate (05467214-c168-4226-060¢-1abosadofade 10 a2 13 4 wv 18 as 20 an 2 23 24 Qo. Page 32 didn't correctly follow the procedures, they can send that employee back to Narconon of Oklahoma? All we do is review the procedure. And then based on your review, what do you do? This is all hypothetical, because it's actually not happened with Narconon of Arrowhead. It's @ hypothetical, but is -- we could say "fhe standard procedure wasn't followed, please go through the procedure again.” Can you require Narconon of Oklahoma to go through the procedure? No, that would be between them and that employee. And what if the employee brought it back because Narconon Oklahoma didn't follow the correct procedure again? It's a hypothetical that hasn't occurred and I can't answer that. Well, being president of Narconon International, how would you handle a situation like that? As it hasn't happened, I -- it's a hypothetical that hasn't come up. Does Narconon International have any authority to recommend disciplinary action in regard to an employee at one of the Narconon facilities? No. (06067210-0160-4226-b00e-tabssadstane Page 44 a pay money to go to the center; correct? 2 A, That's what I meant by public. I'm sorry. 3 Q. And what steps will be taken by Narconon 4 International if that performance issue is not corrected? | 6 A. Then that might require a further visit to find out 7 why. 8 Q. Now, is Narconon International ever provided any 9 performance issue -- strike that. 10 Has Narconon International ever contacted a Narconon of Oklahoma in regards to performance 1 issues of employees? 13° A, That's kind of an open-ended question. Can you be u a little more specific? Don't know, but I'll reask it and maybe that will help. Okay. Narconon International, have they ever brought to 19 the attention of Narconon of Oklahoma any 20 performance issues in regards to staff at Narconon 2 of Oklahoma? What Narconon receives are statistical and other 23 basic reports on a weekly basis. If those 2a statistics are showing something, an area that 25 should be increasing is declining or there is some 2n-c169-4226-090e-12b96a09ta00 Page 45 conflict, we'll bring it to the attention of the executive director to look at that and that might involve a specific staff member being corrected. We might say "You need to look at this area, you need to look at that area, because the statistics are showing a problem," and then we would get a report back, "Oh, we looked and this is what we found and this is what we did," and that's how it's handled. Is the executive director required to take any steps once they receive that notification from Narconon International? They are required to deliver superb service so there is no conflict. It's not a matter of a direct order, it's a matter of "This is what we've seen, look into this area," and they do and they let us know how it goes. Is the executive director required to act based on notification from Narconon International? No, we do not issue day-to-day orders into the center. So an executive director at Narconon Arrowhead, if they receive notice from Narconon International of a problem, the executive director of Narconon of Oklahoma can just ignore it and continue doing what he's doing; is that correct? (05467210-c180-4226-2000-tab96adeta00 10 a 12 a4 as 16 ae 19 20 22 23 24 Q. Page 83 agreement? To the best of my knowledge, yes. Has Narconon International assisted Narconon Arrowhead in any way financially? You would have to be more specific. Pay any of their bills? No, we have not paid their bills. Given them any money? There have been circumstances under which we have made contributions to Narconon Arrowhead. What is meant by a contribution? Monies to help them in whatever way they would deem to be helpful. And how much in contributions has Narconon International made to Narconon Arrowhead? You would have to give me a time frame, sir. Let's start with since the facility opened in Arrowhead. That's beyond the -- MR. LeBLAN : That's beyond the scope of your ~~ (By Mr, Richardson) How about in the last five years? We have given them $400,000. I assume when you say given monies ~~ (05467214-2168-4225-060e-1ab96edota0e Page 87 | a stated 2 Q. (By Mr. Richardson) Exhibit 2 and 3. 3A. Yeah, Exhibit 2 and 3, specifically Exhibit 3, the 4 Trademark License, is our relationship. 5 Q. So the answer would be no; is that correct? 6 MR. LeBLANC: Object to the form. 7 A. No, they would have to have a trademark license 8 approval to deliver the Narconon program. That's |} 9 all. 10 Q. (By Mr. Richardson) Where else could Narconon ro Arrowhead get a license to operate as a Narconon 2 facility without going through Narconon 2B International? 14° A, ‘They can also get it from ABLE International. 15 Q. If you go back to Exhibit 2, Business Associate 16 Duties and Responsibilities, it says “These review wv activities include, but are not limited to." What 18 other activity are there besides the ones that are listed that are the duties and responsibilities of 20 the business associate? a MR. LeBLANC: Object to the form of the 22 question. | 23 As the Business Associate Agreement states, it does 24 not supersede the trademark license, so there are -- 25 there may be other things that are included in the (054672 10-c180-4226-b90c-tabGadefade Page 88 1 trademark license. 2 Q. (By Mr. Richardson) What are the business 3 associate's duties and responsibilities? 4 A. I would have to review the trademark license, but 5 here it just says they are not limited to, so I 6 don't know what that would include specifically and 7 I would have to speculate. ® Q. In the 16 facility reviews that were conducted, was 9 there any type of a written report that resulted 10 from that inspection? 11 A, Sometimes there would be, yes. 12 Q, Where would someone go about getting those? 13° A, Those would have come from Narconon International “4 and been filed. 15 Q, Would Narconon International still have those in 16 their possession? 7 A. Those that were written and sent to us, yes. 18 Q. Is there any set period of time between each 19 review? 20° A. No, sir. 21 Q, Is there any limit on the number of reviews that 22 Narconon International can do? 23 A, Not per the trademark license. 24 Q, It would include review of case folders of its 2s clients to verify standards of technology and a (05067210-c168-4226-b60e-tabssacotave 3 10 aa 12 “4 16 v7 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 a Page 92 I don't see that it states that this is a - was the question a requirement? (The record was read by the reporter as requested.) No, sir, I don't see that stated as a requirement. (By Mr. Richardson) Did Narconon International assist Narconon Arrowhead in their certification with CARF? To the same matter is there's a considerable amount of paperwork that's involved, it's possible that a staff member may have gone there to help them get all of their paperwork in order. I'm not actually sure, but I believe that's certainly possible. Is there anything under the licensing agreement that require that? Not that would require it. Is Narconon International a subsidiary of ABLE? No, sir, as I understand what the term "subsidiary" means. Have any board members that has sat with Narconon International ever sat as board members on ABLE? Not to my knowledge. Do you know the board members of ABLE? No, I actually don't know all the board members of ABLE. How do you define the relationship between ABLE and (05467212-c180.4226-b90e-tabseadtade 15 16 uw 18 BY MR. LeBLANC: Q. Page 119 track of that's what Narconon International is doing. (By Mr. Richardson) Well, your definition of duties and responsibilities? yes. MR. LeBLANC: Object to the form. So we'll have to go back to what is the question? I'm just trying to precisely understand. (By Mr. Richardson) Does Attachment A to Exhibit 2 mean what it says? Well, I don't know how to stay that it doesn't mean what it says; in other words, the words obviously mean what they state. MR. RICHARDSON: Pass the witness. RECROSS EXAMINATION Mr. Carr, Attachment A says "Business Associate shall do these things." Is that right or wrong? Do they do these things? Do you have to do them? As covered my understanding has always been is that this is an attachment and that it does not supersede the license agreement. So the license agreement dictates what you must do; right? —— | (050672 12-6158-4226-b80c-tabseadofade 18 1s 20 au 23 24 25 A. Q. Page 120 Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: Objection; nonresponsive. (By Mr. LeBlanc) I'm going to ask you again. Does @ Business Associate Agreement intended to protect HIPAA confidentiality in any way obligate Narconon International to do anything other than protect client confidentiality? No. MR. RICHARDSON: Objection to form. (By Mr. LeBlanc) Since you weren't the person who drafted this I'm not going to ask you to speculate as to why Attachment A was included, but has Narconon Oklahoma ever made any demand on Narconon | International to do anytl ing pursuant to this agreement? No, sir. MR. LeBLANC: Okay. Pass the witness. REDIRECT EXAMINATION Sir, how long has Attachment A been attached to business associate agreements? I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question, as I'm not the one that signed this. Has it been that way since you've been president? 05467214-c180-4226-b60e-tabesacotade REC'D VIA EMAIL by DVL 07/22/2015 CORRECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION ‘OF CLARK CARR, TAKEN JUNE 10, 2015 587-6; TAL-CBM-CLO Line ‘Correction Reason 9 TIF ‘Narconon International signed a trademark license with ABLE International to have the right to sublicense individual organizations around the world to use the secular drug rehabilitation and prevention methodology of... ‘Grammatical Correction [9 In Canadian, Narconon Arrowhead. (Clarification 29 ta ie 25 No. (Clarification 32 [21 ‘No, other than to bring concems to the attention of the center's executive director. (Clarification 3) 6 PPer our trademark license agreement, any concems can be brought to the center's ‘executive director who can then take appropriate corrective steps, Clarification 37 | 16-18 Yes, Narconon lntemational’s only duty oF responsibility under this document is to protect student privacy and confidentiality as required by HIPAA, This document does not create any duty or responsibility to take any corrective action against any facility personnel. Clarification 37 | 2ae Yes, and as I stted before, per the Ticense agreement, which is part of this agreement sit, Narconon Intemational may review personnel folders and may express concem to the center executive director, but iis not obligated to do so. Clarification @ | 0 “Hart” should be Smith (Clarification 6) 7 ‘We did not review any policies and procedures, and we were not made aware of any policies or procedures that were violated, Clarification TO | 35 Tdo not recall whether Tread the demand letter, but Ido recall reading the lawsuit. Clarification Tm |_é T'm not sure if I saw it (Clarification 74 | 45 ‘What I understand is that she bad not been enrolled into withdrawal, but was placed into that area to segregate her from other students in the program. Clarification 76 | 7 ‘Only that she was sent to the withdrawal area, and she interacted with staff and a roommate, Clarification | (00340657) Line’ Correction Reason, 23 ‘No, sir. A new license agreement was executed April 9, 2013, which is the agreement currently in affect. Clarification 7 88. 23-25 ‘Narconon International’ authority to review and inspect Nereonon Arrowhead comes from the License Agreement, not ‘the Business Associate Agreement. The Business Associate Agreement is merely a HIPAA required confidentiality agreement which does not create any duties ot responsibilities on the part of Narconon International other than to protect the privacy and confidentiality of students. Clatification 88 +6 ‘The only duty and responsibility of ‘Narconon International under the Business Associate Agreement isto protect student privacy and confidentiality in accordance with HIPAA, Clarification @ "As appropriate, Narconon International can point out an issue of concern and the facility can then take necessary corrective actions. Clarification 30 59 The directors are myself, Patty Schwartz and Chelsea Zwan. The officers are myself, President, Pete Van Auken, ‘Treasurer and Sue Birkenshaw, Secretary. Prior to 2013, the secretary was Claudia Areabascio. Previously misidentified 19-21 ‘Yes, Claudia Areabastio was, I believe, ‘our secretary for some years and was replaced by Sue Birkenshaw. Misidentified 103 ein Tremember something to that effect, but I never saw a Better Business Bureau complaint, and I do not know whether the person who wrote that email ever actually saw the complaint. Clarification 104 12 ‘out that, in fact, what was meant was not what ‘Grammatical Correction 109 wm Tam not aware of any formal complaints, though J am aware of state agency investigations. Clarification Ti 69 ‘Yes. This is a HIPAA compliance document that exists only to insure student privacy and confidentiality. It does not supersede or change the license agreement, Clarification 100340657) 2 Correction Reason and it does not create any duties or responsibilities other than protection of student privacy and confidentiality. Ti7 | 2-6 | {would have to speculate, as Twas not the [ Clarification person who wrote this document, nor did 1 sign it Ti7 | 15-17 | The wording of these does not supersede | Clarification the trademark license agreement, that’s my ‘understanding. This does not create any new duties or responsibilities on the part of ‘Narconon International T19 | 11-13 | Well, I don’t know how else to say that it | Clarification docsn’t mean what it says. As previously stated, this document exists to protect student confidentiality and privacy. It does not obligate or require Narcorton International to perform any specific activities. ‘Narconon Intemational may do thee tings unde thie areemcn, to do those things as this document Seems to sugges 1, Clark Carr, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition transcript was presented to ‘me as a truc and correct transcript of the proceedings in the above-styled and numbered cause, and I now sign the same — subject t9 and, changes se above ~ as truc day of July, 201 " ‘SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _0l “day of July, 2015. ‘Notary Public My commission expires: Whoft 00340657), 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 ‘A rotary public or other officer completing ths certificate veries only the identity ofthe individual who signed the ‘Gocumant to which this certificate is attached, and nat the truthfulness, ancuracy, or vality ofthat document, State of California ) Countyoi_ Leas Plageles,— ) on Taidyy 21, 2S detore me, Cacmen G. SPinoza——-—. Date Here insert Name and Title of the Otficer personally appeared CAC 1 CO. C Name(s) of Signerts) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personipf whose name(gf(Slare Subocriood to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that(@@Paherthey executed the same in ter/their authorized acacia and that bygfiis2her/their signaturejs¥ on the instrument the person(s}, BF tho entity upon behalt of which the personig} acted, executed the ifetrument, | certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signatur ‘Signature BkNotary PubHic Place Notary Seal Above OPTIONAL ‘Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Tile or Type of Document’ Depasitian Coccectiondocument Date: 7/.a1 fuss Number of Pages: -. 3 Signerts) Other Than Named Above, -s==———— ee Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signeris) Signer's Name: Clack Cace Signer's Name: Corporate Officer — Titles: _-—-_‘ Corporate Officer — Title Partner — Limited 7 General C Partner — “Limited AZ General FAindividual ~ — ClAttomey in Fact ‘individual ~~ pefomey in Fact C Trustee Guardian or Conservator A Trustee ‘Guardian or Conservator Other: — 3 Other: —___ Signer is Representing: — Set Signer Is Repy 7 (©2014 National Notary Association + www. NalionalNotary.org + 1-B00-US NOTARY (1-800-876-8827) tem #5907 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) a ) AEEIDAVIT OF CLARK CARR 1, Clark Carr, being of lawful age and having been first duly swom, state upon oath as follows: L 2 6. 1am a corporate representative for Narconon International (hereinafter “NI”). Nlis a non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in California, As a non- profit corporation, NI does not issue shares or own stock in any other organization. ‘Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a Narconon Arrowhead (hereinafter “Arrowhead”) is not a “subsidiary”, division or department of NI, and NI is not a “subsidiary”, division or department of the Association for Better Living and Education International (hereinafter “ABLE”). NI does not control or direct the wages or working conditions of Arrowhead staff and does not supervise Arrowhead’s staff's daily work routine. NI’s corporate directors and officers do not serve as directors or officers for ABLE or Arrowhead. NI’s comporate books and bank accounts are maintained separate and apart from ABLE and Arrowhead. NI prepares financial statements separate and apart from Arrowhead and ABLE. NI has no power to control the daily maintenance of the Arrowhead facility and does not control Arrowhead’s business expenditures. Further, NI does not fix Arrowhead’s consumer rates and docs not demand a share of profits, outside the license fee due to NI pursuant to the license agreement. (00382300) 1 H FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. My commission expi Whole (00382300) aa a gees Ho 206 “K Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the tdentity ofthe individual who signed the document to which this certificates attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California 1 County of Los Angeles ‘in Subscribed and sworn to (oF affirmed) before me on this 9th dayof_Qune 2016 ,by__ Clarke Cate ‘and / proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person’x) who appeared before me, TARO CARMONA] comme #1997705 Notay Puc Catone. B tos Angeles Cooaty Veenh oh esata PI My Coven Eves, 10.206 OPTIONAL INFORMATION “Aithough th sermon in ths sections nt equi By (aw, coud prevent fudulnt remy >\ eet rearachment of this ura o 9 unautnanzed documnt an may prove use to persone rag nthe aac }] Description of Attached Document The cafcata ticked oa coeuetedfr ne pupose ot ARP idovis OP Clatle Care | | emperannaie Ocean pert CA Deiver License eS ewe naoenact 329 —> 94 “18 27 containing 2 pages, end cated 6/9/16 pome___| Aitanis)Thambprns) [] Dosebe: Method of Afant Identfeation IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WAITS, individually, and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased. Plaintifés, NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER TVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.0., M.Ed., Defendants. MATTHEW HOLTEN and suZAN HOLTEN, individually, and as Co-Adninistratora of The Estate of Hillary Holten, Deceased, Plaintifs NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC. , an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporations ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER EIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, @ Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, D.0., M.Ed., Defendants. case No. ca-2012-265 CONSOLIDATED WITH: case No. cJ-2012-224 DEPOSITION OF GARY SMITH Page 1) BIT yi — =! b01204-5e61-4500-a7Bdan4Aacé4ceTtd 16 18 19 20 an 23 24 25 Page 130 Two years ago it was probably around 60. What's the low in the last 24 months? Fifteen or sixteen. When was that? Within the last three months. How many months in the last five years has Narconon Oklahoma cash flowed? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. In the last 60 months, how many months has Narconon Oklahoma cash flowed? I don't -~ MR. LeBLANC: Object to the form. (By Mr, Richardson) They were in a positive, not a negative. There hasn't been. When is the last time Narconon Oklahoma was in a positive cash flow? Around 2010 to -- about 2010, ‘11. What is that Narconon of Oklahoma does to cover the shortfalls in the operating budget since 2010? Well, we're -- there is -- actually let me back up on that. The -- I'm trying to think. So yeah, it was probably 2012, early 2012 was -- financially there was no shortfall and things were fine then, and in time as we've -- the cash flow has gotten b01204-5e61-4500-a7Ba.294ace4ceTId Page 131 less, we've depended more on donations and things 2 like that to help support the facility. 3 Q. Who has been the largest donator during that time? 4A, There has been a lot of small donations through a 5 scholarship fund that we have. | 6 Q. Who has been the largest donator? 7B, I would probably say Narconon International. ® Q. Who would be the second largest? A . ABLE has contributed some funds to assist us. 10 2 How long has ABLE been contributing funds to aa Narconon of Oklahoma? 12 A, Within the last six months or so. 3 Q. And how much money has ABLE donated to Narconon of a4 Oklahoma? 18 A, I don't have an exact figure, but it's mainly with 16 liability insurance payments and things like that, uv so I can give you a guesstimate. 8 Q. Okay. A. It would also be reflected on the 990. 20 Q. Just give me your estimate. 21 A. Between 20- and $30,000 as an estimate. 22 Q. Where does Narconon Oklahoma receive its 23 advertising material? 24 RK, We generate some of it in-house and some of it 28 comes from Narconon International. b01204-8c5t-4500-a78d. 804306408714 Page 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, individually and as Natural Parents and Next of Kin of Stacy Dawn Murphy, deceased, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CJ-2012-265 Judge James Bland ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an ) Oklahoma Corporation d/b/a ) NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON — ) INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign ) Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR 7 BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION ) INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign ) Corporation, and GERALD D. ) WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed., ) ) ) Defendants. (Cont'd on Page 2) VIDEO DEPOSITION OF TONYA LYNN WHITE, produced as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, pursuant to the stipulations hereinafter set forth. TAKEN 01 March 5, 2014 TAKEN AT 7447 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma TAKEN BY: Holly R. Reed, C.S.R. | HOLLY R, REED Certified Shorthand Reporter EXHIBIT 813 North Aster Avenue Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012 J J 918/252-9873 Electronical signed by Holly Reed (001-060-127-2608) 40 587420-4174-4606-8f16-0c00420165 Page 350 Q. And are you aware that Narconon International 2 is also named as a defendant in this case? 3 A. Um, yes, I -- I am aware of that. 4 Q. Do you have any understanding of why that is? 5 A. I don't know anything about Narconon 6 International. v Q. And what about ABLE, Association For Better @ Living; do you know anything about that organization or 9 why they're in this lawsuit? 10 A. Um, no, I don't. 1 Q. Okay. You -- and I'm going back to follow up 12 on some of the questions that -- ! 13 A. Sure. 4 Q. -- that Mr. Secrest asked and the answers you 15 gave. So I may jump around a little bit. If you get 16 lost, let me know that so I can put it into context for 17 you. Maybe it will make more sense; okay? 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. But -- but at one point Mr. Secrest was asking 20 you about your ex-husband's drug use, and you said 21 something about Stacy and Jesse told you and sometime 22 in 2006 that there was a text on Robert's phone 23 indicating he had smoked pot, and I couldn't figure out 24 what that was about. 25 A. They, um -- and I just -- I just know it was Etoctronically signed by Holly Reed (001-060-127-2608) (0507 420-41704546-$115-0fc04842055. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ROBERT MURPHY and TONYA WHITE, Individually, and as Natural Parents and Next: of Kin of STACY DAWN MURPHY, Deceased, oH Case No.: CJ-2012-265 ffs, vs. NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a NARCONON ARROWHEAD; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, a Foreign Corporation; and GERALD D. WOOTAN, DO, M.Ed., Defendants, PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT THE ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Robert Murphy end Tonya White (“Plaintiffs”), and for their responses to Defendant The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, alloge and state as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs make the following general objections to the First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant, The Association for Better Living and Education International (“Defendant”). Each of the following objections is applicable, to the extent appropriate, to all and each one of the Discovery Requests. These general objections are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any specific objections that may additionally be made to any specific discovery request. 1. Plaintiffs object to discovery requests that are not relevant to the subject matter of EXHIBIT HK the pending action and those that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Plaintiffs object to discovery requests that call for disclosure of information subject to the attorney-client privilege. To the extent the Interrogatories inquire, in whole or in part, into the communications between attomeys and clients (or between or among clients or clients’ representatives and their lawyers’ representatives) made in confidence for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services, all of such communications are protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. 3. Plaintiff object to the disclosure of any information that was prepared in anticipation of litigation for trial by and for Plaintiffs or any of their representatives that is otherwise beyond the scope of discovery admitted by court rule. 4. Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions contained in Defendant's discovery requests to the extent those definitions and instructions might purport to impose duties ‘or obligations in addition to, or inconsistent with, or different from the requirements of the Oklahoma statutes. 5, Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s discovery request to the extent Defendant purports to require Plaintiffs to identify or produce information or documents that are not within Plaintiffs’ custody and control. Plaintiffs will identify or produce non-privileged information or documents that are presently in the custody and control of Plaintiffs. 6. Plaintiffs object to Defendant's instructions concerning the supplementation of Plaintiffs’ answers to the extent that those instructions might purport to impose duties or obligations in addition, or inconsistent with, or different from the requirements of the Oklahoma statutes. 7. Plaintiffs object to Defendant's instructions to the extent Defendant purports to require Plaintiffs to identify and give detailed information conceming privileged documents, communications or information in which such identification is not required by Oklahoma statute. 8. Plaintiffs do not concede the relevancy of any discovery request nor the relevancy or admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in answer thereto. The fact that information is provided or documents are produced in response to a particular discovery request does not mean that itis probative of any particular issue in this matter. 9. If any work product or privileged document or information is inadvertently produced in answer to these or other requests, Plaintiffs reserve this privilege with respect to the document or information, his right to object to inspection and copying the document or information, his right to demand the retum of the document or information, and his right to object to the admissibility of the document or information, 10. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses in accordance with Oklahoma Discovery Code until discovery is complete by final order of this Court. 11. Objection is made to discovery requests that inquire about “every” and “all” documents, statements, or knowledge and require Plaintiffs to produce “fully”, to the extent that such requests reach, or would require Plaintiffs to invade or reveal communications and things ‘that are exempt. Plaintiffs further objects to such indiscriminately inclusive discovery requests as an improper attempt to limit its trial presentation at the pretrial stages of discovery. 12. To the extent that a discovery request requires an answer that impliedly adopts the supposition of the request that Plaintiffs have acted or omitted to act in the manner described, an answer to such requests does not constitute admission or denial of such assumed facts, 13. To the extent the discovery requests inquire, in whole or in part, into the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintifis’ attomeys working to assist ‘rial preparation or in anticipation of litigation, such is protected from discovery by the work product privilege. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify yourself and Stacy Dawn Murphy fully by stating mame, any other name you have ever used or been known by, date of birth, social security number, former residence address and former business address, if any, RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to providing their social security numbers or dates of birth of on the grounds of irrelevance, and not likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence, that it further is an unwarranted invasion of privacy and is not required by applicable law. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Tonya Lynn White, a/k/a Tonya Murphy, Tonya Studiner, Tonya Bejcek, born May 12, 1965, SSN is XXX-XX-1289, 8945 N. 138th E. Ave., Owasso, OK 74055. Robert Dean Murphy, a/kla “Murphy”, bom August 8, 1960, SSN is XXX-XX-5726. Stacy Dawn Murphy, a/k/a “Charlie Bear”, born March 12, 1992, SSN is XXX-XX-5740, 8945 N. 138th E. Ave., Owasso, OK 74055, INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State specifically and in full detail any and all communications (whether oral or written, or otherwise), that Plaintiffs or Stacy Dawn Murphy (including agents, employees and family members of Plaintiffs and/or Stacy Dawn Murphy, if applicable) has had with Defendant The Association for Better Living and Education International (including agents and employees of Defendant, if applicable) relating in any way, directly or indirectly, with the allegations and contentions in this lawsuit. As to each such communication, state: A. The identity of each such person or persons involved in the communication; B. The place, date and time of each such communication; The substance of each communication. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome and overly broad. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it would require production of information that is subject to the attorney/work product privilege and to the extent that it attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Additionally, Plaintifis object to this Interrogatory as speculative. Plaintiffs ‘were not with Stacy Murphy during the time she sought treatment at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, and they do not have personal knowledge of what communications Stacy Murphy had with Defendant. Plaintiffs also do not have sufficient information to know whether communications they had with Defendant Narconon of Oklahoma were communications made with persons associated with Defendant The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintifis respond as follows: Response of Plaintiff, Tonya White: On Monday, May 28, 2012, after viewing Narconon’s website, I called Narconon and spoke with an employee named Yvette. I informed Yvette that I had a twenty (20) year old daughter that was addicted to oxycodone and heroin. I informed Yvette that I had been impressed with Narconon’s 76% success rate, Yvette informed ‘me that Narconon had a great rehab program and that most “students” live drug free lives after ‘graduating from their program. Yvette informed me about the details of the sauna program, and explained that Narconon had a very nice facility located on the lake. I was then transferred to Heather, who told me that she was a former graduate of Nareonon’s program. Heather informed me that she was in her Jate thirties, and she had been addicted to oxycodone for many years, She stated that she had tried other drug rehab programs but those programs were not successful, She stated that Narconon’s program works well because the sauna program allows the student to sweat the drugs out of their system thereby removing any desires they had for drugs. Heather also informed me that students of the Nareonon’s program take high doses of Niacin while completing the Sauna program to help get the drugs out of their system quicker. I inquired about the detox program. Heather told me that there was a doctor on staff twenty-four (24) hours a day, and that Narconon had a great staff in the detox area with special training. Heather told me that after Stacy finished the detox program, she would be given a roommate, and Narconon’s staff would teach Stacy how to live a drug free life. I inquired about Scientology, and asked Heather whether Narconon taught the religion of Scientology. Heather stated they did not teach the religion of Scientology, but that they only used the moral and ethical teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. Heather also informed me that there were buses that could pick up the students and take them to a couple of local churches on Sunday mornings. I asked Heather if she would talk to Stacy, and Heather said she would be happy to. Heather gave me her cell phone number and told me that Stacy could call her at anytime. 1 asked Heather how long Narconon’s program was, and Heather told me that the program lasted for a few months, but the Sauna program lasted 4-6 weeks. This was the end of that conversation. Heather called me back a few days later, and wanted to check on Stacy. I informed Heather thet Stacy was trying the outpatient program at Laureate, but that I was still tying to persuade Stacy to check herself into a drug rehabilitation center. ‘On Friday, June 1, 2012, I called ‘Narconon and left a message. A Narconon employee named John Shafer retumed my calls. I informed Mr. Shafer that Stacy was ready to check into Nareonon. Mr. Shafer said that was great, and asked me several questions about Stacy's drug use, health, address, etc. I asked Mr. Shafer how much Narconon’s program would cost, and Mr. Shafer told me he would check with my insurance company and give me a call back. Either Mr. Shafer or Yvette called me back and informed me that my insurance company, Cigna, would pay for all the costs except for $3,500. I asked if they were sure that she would not ‘have to pay more than $3,500. I was assured that I would not have to pay more than $3,500, and I was informed that I could make Payments. I asked if they would agree to a $1,000 down payment, and they agreed, T also spoke with Heather that same day, and told Heather that I was excited that Stacy agreed to go to rehab. I informed Heather that I would be dropping Stacy of at the Narconon Arrowhead facility on June 4. Heather told me that she would try and call Stacy later that day because she needed to ask Stacy some medical questions before she checked in. During the time Stacy was at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, 1 spoke with Sandy Schwarts, who I was told was Stacy's family counselor, every day during the first week Stacy was in Defendant's facility. Ms. Schwarts provided updates to me on Stacy’s treatment, and she Bave Stacy messages that I asked her to give. I also had to schedule all visits through Ms. Schwarts, After Stacy got out ofthe detoxification unit, I spoke to Ms. Schwarts @ couple times a ‘week to get updates regarding Stacy's treatment. Ms. Schwarts informed me Stacy was going through the Sauna program for most of that time. Ms. Schwarts told me that Stacy would not be feeling well because the drugs were being pulled out of her system, and that Stacy woul likely ‘bog me to come and pick her up. Ms. Schwarts told me I needed to stay strong and to ensure that Stacy continues on, and finishes the Sauna program. Ms. Schwarts said I should practice tough love with Stacy and refuse to go and pick her up. Because Stacy only agreed to stay 4-6 weeks at the Narconon Arrowhead facility, Ms. Schwarts and I had discussions about tying to get Stacy ‘0 stay for the entire program. I was referred to David Shanhossein for help on getting Stacy to stay for the entire program. I met with Mr. Shanhossein during a visit to the Narconon Arowhead facility, and we spoke on the phone a few times after that visit, T spoke with David Shanhossein, the Rehabilitation Director, and Jeff, an employee involved with the Sauna program, about granting Stacy a 24-hour leave. I spoke with Mr, Shanhossein on July 12 and July 16 on his cell phone, (832) 858-1170. I spoke with Jeff on July 15 on his cell phone, (772) 486-5144, T spoke with David and Jeff to determine how to try and talk Stacy into staying for Defendant's entire program. Mr. Skanhossein agreed to let Stacy skip the book part of the Program, and take a 24-hour leave of absence, Aesponse of Plaintif, Robert Murphy: 1 spoke with Gary Smith the day after Stacy died We discussed numerous things, including a shift change on the night Stacy died, how many staff ‘members were on duty when Stacy died, Narconon’s policies and procedures, Stacy’s personal property and belongings, etc, INTERROGATORY NO. 3: identify every person who you believe holds information Supporting or relating to the basis for the liability asserted against this Defendant and/or your claim for damages herein and for each such person, state the following: A. the identity of the person; B. the knowledge believed by you to be possessed by said person; C. the identity of all communications or writings which support your belief that such person has or possess this knowledge RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case still in the early stages of discovery. Plaintiffs will comply with their obligation to list witnesses in accordance with a Scheduling Order entered in this case, Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this Tesponse as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs identify the following witnesses: Tonya White, Chris White, Robert Murphy, Susan Murphy, Jesse White, Gary Smith, and Sandy Schwarts. Additionally, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to any individuals identified in response to these Interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: With respect to each basis of liability asserted against this Defendant, state each act or omissions of this Defendant, its officers, agents and/or employees which serves as the basis for the alleged liability. RESPONS! Taintifis object to this Interrogatory as vague, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the Tequested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to Paragraphs 12-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 43-44, and 48-50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant assisted and worked closely with Narconon International and Narconon of Oklahoma to negligently provide drug and alcohol rehabilitation services to her son, Gabriel Graves, causing his death. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State, with specificity, the amount of damages you seek against this Defendant pursuant to the lawsuit you have filed, including medical expenses, past and fatus lost earnings, past and future; loss of earning capacity, physical pain, past and future; ‘mental pain, pas and future; permanent disability; and any other related expense. RESPONSE: Plaintifis object to this Interrogetory as vague, compound, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintifis that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to their Initial Disclosures, which have been submitted pursuant to 1208. § 3226. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify each person Plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial, and state as to each such person: A The subject matter on which he/she is expected to testify; B. The substance of the opinions to which he/she is expected to testify; C. A summary of the grounds for each opinion; D. The qualifications of the expert witness, including a list of all publications authorized by the expert witness within preceding ten (10) years; B. The compensation to be paid to the expert witness for the testimony and preparation for the testimony; and F, A listing of any other cases in which the expert witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. RESPONSE: Plaintifis object to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is compound, vague and overly broad. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery and specifically reserves the right to supplement this Tesponse as discovery proceeds. Plaintifis will comply with their obligation to list expert witnesses in accordance with a Scheduling Order entered in the case. INTERROGATORY NO. Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 6 of your Petition that ‘The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational is “doing business in Oklahoma.” RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, it is unduly burdensome, it improperly requests a legal conclusion and it is premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to supplement this response as discovery u proceeds. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Upon Plaintiffs’ information and belief, Defendant was registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma during all times pertinent to the allegations asserted in Plaintiffs’ Petition, and Defendant was, therefore, doing business in the State of Oklahoma. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 12 of your Petition that The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational is “an umbrella group that oversees the drug rehabilitation, education, and criminal justice activities of The Church of Scientology, including, but not limited to, NI and NO.” RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, it is unduly burdensome, and it is premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The ‘information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds. Plaintiff's further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to a printout of Defendant's Internet website, which is attached hereto. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to 12 es —_ they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered, INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 14 of your Petition that Narconon Intemational isa corporate sham and illusion and is ‘merely an adjunct, subsidiary, licensee and/or alter ego of Defendant The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational and is heavily controlled by ‘The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational, RESPONS! ‘aintifis object to this Interrogatory on the basis that itis overly broad, it is unduly burdensome, it improperly requests a legal conclusion and itis premature as this case is in the carly stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows Plaintiffs refer Defondant to a printout of Defendant's Intemet website, which is attached hereto. According to Defendant's website, Defendant promotes, advertises for, and provides contact information for Defendant, Narconou Intemational. Additionally, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant owns the trademark/service mask “Narconon” and closely assists Narconon International with the monitoring of all operations at all Narconon facilities, Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 9 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve thei right to supplement this response as that information is discovered, INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 26 of your Petition that “the NO program operates under stic rules related to the discipline, structure, hierarchy, and training of ABLE and its subsidiaries, none of which are, Within themselves, known treatments for drug and/or aleohol additions.” RESPONSE: Plaintifs object to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, it {s unduly burdensome, and itis premature as this ease isin the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to supplement this Tesponse as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to a form License Agreement between Narconon International and Narconon Centers opened throughout the United States, which is attached hereto. Plaintiffs refer Defendant to her Response to Interrogatory No. 10 hereinabove. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 14 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered, INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Provide specifically the factual basis for your allegations in Paragraph 27 of your Petition that Narconon International “fraudulently misrepresented and “4 falsely advertised the Narconon Program” and “concealed and continue to conceal the Narconon Program’s true relationship with ABLE”. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as vague, compound, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion, Plaintiffs further object to this {nterrogatory as premature as this case isin the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position ‘0 provide the requested information at a later time, Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory {o the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to Supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to their responses to the Interrogatories included hereinabove. More specifically, upon information and belief, Plaintifis contend that Defendant fraudulently presents, and falsely advertises, that it has over a 70% success rat, that a medical director is on Staff 24/7, that Defendant hus licensed and certified counselors on staff, and that the sauna Program is a successful method of drug rehabilitation. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant's Interrogetory No. 11 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please state with particularity exactly how this Defendant caused the wrongful death of Stacy Dawn Murphy. RESPONSE NO, 12: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory 2s vague, compound, burdensome, overly broad and as it improperly requests a legal conclusion, Plaintiffs further 15 object to this Interrogetory as premature as this case is in the early stages of discovery. The information sought is still subject to pending discovery proceedings. Plaintiffs will, therefore, be in a better position to provide the requested information at a later time. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks the thoughts and strategy of counsel and attempts to impose a burden on Plaintiffs that exceeds the requirements of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Subject to and without waiving any objections set forth and incorporated herein and while reserving the right to supplement this response as discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs refer Defendant to the allegations in their Petition and to their Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, and 7-11, included hereinabove. Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they believe additional information responsive to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 12 will be developed during discovery, and they reserve their right to supplement this response as that information is discovered. ’ INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If your answers any of The Association for Better Living and Education Intemational’s Requests for Admissions was anything but an unqualified yes, please state the factual basis for said denial. RESP( E_NO. 13: In regards to Plaintiffs’ denials of Defendant’s Requests for Admissions Nos. 1-3 and 7, Plaintiffs refers Defendant to the objections included in their Responses to Defendant's First Set of Admissions to Plaintiffs. In regards to Plaintiffs’ denials of Defendants’ Requests for Admissions Nos. 4-6, Plaintiffs state that they lack sufficient information and knowledge to know whether any contect they and/or Stacy Murphy made with persons associated with Stacy’s treatment at the Narconon Arrowhead facility were persons associated with Defendant, 16 Respectfully submitted, RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX KEESLING, PLLC Gary L. Richardson, OBA #7547 Charles L. Richardson, OBA #13388 Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA #990 Melissa A. East, OBA #21695 7447 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136-6808 (918) 492-7674 Telephone (918) 493-1925 Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING hereby certify that on the ZagJ day of April, 2013, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to: Thomas A. LeBlane Carrie B. McNeer Basr & SHARP Williams Center Tower I One West Third Street, Suite 900 Tulse, Oklahoma 74103 Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon International and The Association for Better Living and Education International James K. Secrest, II ‘Tara Perkinson Don W. Danz SECREST, HILL, BUTLER & SECREST 7134 8. Yale, Suite 900 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135, Attorneys for Defendants, Narconon of Oklahoma, INe., Wb/a Narconon Arrowhead and Gerald D. Wootan, DO, M.Ed. f\ 1 $ Melissa X- East 18 VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ) ) county or__/W{sa ) 1, Robert Murphy, have read the foregoing Interrogatory Responses to Defendant, The Association for Better Living and Education International, and verify that the information provided therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. PAT Dhol Robert Murphy ‘Sworn to before me this 29 day of March, 2013, 3180 nna VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ) ss. ) county oF “Tulsa ) | i | | 1, Tonya White, have read the foregoing Interrogatory Responses and to Defendant, The ‘Association for Better Living and Education International verify that the information provided therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT, 3 t wom to before me this_2“day of Math, 2013, Aion U dah, ‘NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: g, A Slice 2rsyis naan ‘ILE The assoc Fr ena ving i aon etna gesagt Ciara = ‘The Association for Better Living and Education International (The Assocition for etter Living and Education (ABLE) hs the purpos of reversing the sociel ceay that Createns our societies by resolving the worst problems chat plegue mas tooay — druss, Gime, Wterscy and immorstty. This is done by supporting, pramotng oa cosrdnatne tra Programs of four organizations deckated to socal Pelsereenty “ tee tobe * Morconen International on — Start frconon Goon oe ore * Geman Items irl Ms " ' Stee Ctminan drop + Azlin Scat Itrata . ‘Drug Fecha Meri ver ‘Start on Applied Scholastics Aelivity na foe + Minny a Hono Pounéaon ieee es Start a Tha Wey ko Happlase asety Repay to Iori ‘ick Uren: ‘Mints sech ofthe above four activities (Nerconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics and The Way to Hanis: founda} aren prfe prs a oa oT Suaepnisrores gels and ins ALE ithe nares ac ena RT Orca groans gulch, Sport Sdprmalan tees a ase sees ea ms Ey, vi SataGieperraprn "och ste Cormuritest opaion hasty Peseta rem, ue oral Sitar ABLE es sxc (nor-lious), nora cori ety wh rattan! esau a see {ce anges ard fs on ach a sot soc onl Sines anon Meroncn the Wart npn son became» Hen oa i entrants § q 5 posers