)

2
3
4
5
6
DAVID P. BANCROFT (5B #052106)
GEORGE D. NIESPOLO (Sa 1072107)
DANIEL E. KRITZ (58 #148714)
SIDEMAN & BANCROFT
A Partnership Including
Professional Corporations
Eighth Floor
One Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 392-1960
RECEIVED
NOV 09 1994
waIdlTJan &. Kine
Attorneys for Defendant
7 KEITH L. VOIGTS
8
9
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FREDERICK S. WYLE, as Trustee in
Bankruptcy of HAMILTON TAFT &
COMPANY,
KPMG PEAT MARWICK, a general
partnership; KEITH L. VOIGTS;
and DOES ONE through TWENTY,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
v.
)
) Case No. 950522
)
)
) DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF
) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
)
)
)
)
)
)
----------------)
17
18
19
15
16
11
12
13
14
10
..
r
r-
lJ..';




=
m
.. ..
o ..

20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, FREDERICK S. WYLE
--- ----I--.o=.r'='-6
III
III
III
27
28
26
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, KEITH L. VOIGTS
23 SET NUMBER: ONE (Special)
24 Keith L. Voigts ("VOIGTS") responds to Plaintiffs' First Set
25 of special Interrogatories as follows:
;. '.'j'
..
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL - , -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL
11
0
£r
U
12
Z
III
<{ 13 ...
'd
rIl
...
II.
14
o .Y
~
«
..J
15
.l.
16
w
0
-
17
If)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL STATEMENT
1. VOIGTS objects that these interrogatories are premature
as discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing which may
lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from
the responses set forth herein. VOIGTS reserves the right to
supplement these responses as his investigation and discovery
proceeds.
2. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
they seek information protected by the work product doctrine, the
attorney-client privilege, andlor any other applicable privilege.
3. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
they are overbroad, unduly b ~ r d e n s o r n e and oppressive, and seek
information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence .
4. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
they seek information in the possession or control of individuals
or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that they are unduly
burdensome and oppressive.
5. VOIGTS objects to these interrogatories to the extent
they seek information already within plaintiffs' possession on the
grounds that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive.
6. Except where these interrogatories specifically indicate
otherwise, VOIGTS is interpreting them only to request information
pertaining to the time period during which PEAT MARWICK was
engaged to perform services for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG and the
ARMSTRONG entities.
/11
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 2 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
lL.
II
0
a:
u
12
z
~ ci 13
u
m
j;:
...
14
o -..
;
3
15
~
16
w
0
-
17
U)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. These General Objections are expressly incorporated by
reference into each of the responses that follow as if fully set
forth therein.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.1:
Identify all services performed by defendant VOIGTS for or on
behalf of HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or any entity owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG as to which YOU contend that VOIGTS was
not acting as the agent of defendant PEAT HARWICK. (For purposes
of these interrogatories, "HAMILTON TAFT" means Hamilton Taft &
Co.; "ARMSTRONG" means Connie C. Armstrong, Jr.; "PEAT MARWICK"
means KPMG Peat Marwicki and "YOU/YOUR/YOURSELF" and "VOIGTS"
means Keith L. Voigts •
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. SUbject to,
and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 3 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
1.L
11
0
a:
u
12
z
Ul
<{ 13 w
u
m
;;:
l&.
.-'
14 0
~
~
15
2:
16
w
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
responds as follows: None while VOIGTS was a partner at PEAT
MARWICK.
INTERROGATORY NO.2:
with respect to each service identified in YOUR response to
Interrogatory No.1, describe with particularity all facts on
which YOU base YOUR contention that VOIGTS was not acting as an
agent of PEAT MARWICK.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO.3:
Describe in detail the substance of any advice or other
services (including, without limitation, review, analysis,
investigation and discussion) provided by YOU to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG
concerning permissible uses of funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT
client tax deposits.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the use of the word "permissible.
1t
VOIGTS further objects
to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks
information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory
to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 4 -
_ " .. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
....
u..
11
0
n:
12
U
z
~ «
13
u
lD
i:
...
14 0_".
~
~
15
,
.l.
16
w
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. Subject to
and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: VOIGTS was not engaged to and did not
provide advice or services to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities
owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG concerning permissible uses of
funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT tax deposits. PEAT HARWICK did
provide limited analyses of section 7501 of the Internal Revenue
Code, and its analyses is summarized in the work papers, bates
numbered PM006761-62.
INTERROGATORY NO.4:
Describe in detail all investigation, research, analysis or
other steps taken by YOU to satisfy YOURSELF that the use of
HAMILTON TAFT funds from client tax deposits to fund investments
and acquisitions by ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG was permissible.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the use of t r ~ word "permissible." VOIGTS further objects
to this interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks
information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. VOIGTS further Objects to this interrogatory
to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 5 -
.....U
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
1.1..
11
a
rr
u
12
z
«
13
[J)
1(
14
~
15
:2:
16
w
0
-
17
(f)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. Subject to
and without waiving these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: See Voigts Response to Special Interrogatory
No.3, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition,
VOIGTS had discussions with HAMILTON TAFT'S attorneys, concerning
their attorney letter prepared for the March 31, 19B9 aUdit, in
which the attorneys stated that the use of HAMILTON TAFT funds
from client tax deposits to fund investments and acquisitions by
ARMSTRONG and entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG was
permissible.
INTERROGATORY NO.5:
Identify all loans, acquisitions, investments and other
transactions entered into by HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG that YOU knew or
understood were funded, directly or indirectly, with HAMILTON TAFT
funds.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 6 -
- .... :./
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL.
11
0
0:
U
12
Z
til
4: 13 \oJ
U
m
~
IL
14 0
t(J
~
15
I
16
w
0
-
17
Ul
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: During the course of professional services,
VOIGTS was told that, based on review of the financial statements
of HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies, funds were
transferred between HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies.
VOIGTS' understanding was that the early investments -- like PIF,
weir Bros. and River City Fair -- were funded with HAMILTON TAFT
funds. with respect to those of the later investments of which
VOIGTS ultimately learned -- like the oil and gas leases, the
Seventh at Sonterra, the Double C Ranch, and Parker Automotive
VOIGTS did not have a clear understanding to what extent HAMILTON
TAFT funds were used, but he assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds were
used. VOIGTS was informed and believed that HAMILTON TAFT was
acting in accordance with the advice of its counsel and was making
its own determinations as to the use of its funds. HAMILTON TAFT
did not seek PEAT MARWICK's or VOIGTS' advice in connection with
such determinations.
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 7 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
LL
11
0
((
12
U
Z
(JI
<i 13 w
u
m
10.
...
14 0
t<J
~
IS
I
16
w
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO.6:
Describe in detail all facts disclosed to YOU or known by YOU
that indicated that it was or would be improper, unlawful or
imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT monies to fund investments and
expenditures by ARMSTRONG or by entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the words "improper" and "imprudent." VOIGTS also objects
that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further
objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than
VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in
this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding
to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the
making of a compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from
PEAT MARWICK's documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers
which were previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of
compiling the list of these documents would be the same for
plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these
and his General objections, VOIGTS responds as follows: VOIGTS is
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 8 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
OC
12
U
z
~ 13
m
- ~
14
15
.
I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unable to fUlly respond to this interrogatory as discovery is
ongoing and the interrogatory is too vague. However, VOIGTS was
aware of no facts which would indicate that nit was or would be
improper, unlawful or imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT monies to
fund investments and expenditures by ARMSTRONG or by entities
owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. If In fact, plaintiff admits in
his interim reports that HAMILTON TAFT was permitted to profit
from at least some investments of the funds deposited by its
clients to pay taxes. Thus, by plaintiff's own admission, it
would not be improper, unlawful or imprudent to use HAMILTON TAFT
monies to fund at least some types of investments by HAMILTON
TAFT, an entity plaintiff alleges was owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG. In addition, HAMILTON TAFT's attorneys informed PEAT
MARWICK that HAMILTON TAFT faced potential liability in the event
that it did not pay its customers' taxes but that the use of funds
was a business decision for HAMILTON TAFT to make. PEAT MARWICK
was told that HAMILTON TAFT's executives were aware of this advice
and that HAMILTON TAFT was making its own determinations as to how
it would use funds.
INTERROGATORY NO.7:
state all facts· known by YOU between January 1988 and
March 20, 1991 relating to the diversion of HAMILTON TAFT's
clients' tax deposits, including, without limitation, the
increasing amounts of said diversions and the increasing penalties
paid by HAMILTON TAFT as a result of said diversions.
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 9 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
rr
12
U
z
~ 13
m
. ~
14
15
~
L
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0. 7:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the word "diversion." VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory as overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks
information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory
to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: VOIGTS was aware of no "diversion" of
HAMILTON TAFT's client tax deposits.
INTERROGATORY NO.8:
Oescribe each of the services performed by YOU at any time
between January 1988 and the present for ARMSTRONG andlor any
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 10 -
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY ~ O . 8:
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
March 31, 1989.
2. Review of HAMILTON TAFT'S balance sheet as of June 30,
- 11 -
1989.
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
1. Acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT's balance sheet as of
information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
from PEAT MARWICK. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
performance of the following services for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG
to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for
or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG:
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
responds as follows: VOIGTS participated in PEAT MARWICK's
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I-
lJ..
11
0
0:
U
12
Z
III
et 13 w
~
ID
...
..
14
o . ~
~
• .J
15
""-
i:
16
w
0
-
17
(f)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-_.'
i"
I-
lJ..
o
a:
u
z
t:l «
~ m
'"
a ..
J
0(
..
~
L
w
o
lJ)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Uncompleted audit of HAMILTON TAFT's financial
statements as of and for the period ended December 31,
1989.
Uncompleted audit of Dresdner Enterprise's financial
statements as of and for the period ended September 30,
1989.
Uncompleted audit of Chase Development Corp. financial
statements.
Preparation or advice related to the following tax
returns: Chase Development Co. Form 1120 for
YE 9/30/87, Dreyfus Mortgage 1989, Dresdner capital
1989, CCAJ, Inc. 1989, Dresdner Petroleum 1989, D r e s d n e ~
Investments Inc. 1989, Remington Co. 1986, Dresdner
Enterprises 1987, Dresdner Enterprises 198B, Hamilton
Taft 1989, Suisse Texas Inc. 1989, Chase-Pulee Joint
venture 1989, Chase Development 1986, RCF Inc. or
ARMSTRONG's personal returns.
Advice related to the accounting theory applicable to a
proposed real estate investment plan involving zero
coupon bonds.
Attendance as a guest at some Remington Advisory Board
meetings.
Advice related to tax and accounting implications of
restructuring.
25
10. Dataccount businessman's review.
Uncompleted engagement for agreed upon procedures with
respect to PIF properties undertaken by PEAT MARWICK
real estate personnel.
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS I
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 12 -
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
r-
LL
11
0
cr
12
U
Z
<{ 13
m
~ I (
14
15
.....
~
16
w
0
-
17
(/)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. Advice with respect to accounting treatment or tax
questions, from time to time as they arose, as specified
in VOIGTS' responses to special Interrogatories 13, 16,
28, 31, 34 and 35.
Subsequent to VOIGTS' separation from PEAT MARWICK, VOIGTS
did some consulting work for companies with which ARMSTRONG was
apparently associated and, for a brief period, was an employee of
CompUCheck, Inc., a public company in which ARMSTRONG had an
interest. As a principal of the KLV Group, VOIGTS was engaged by
Chenal Corporation between September of 1991 and' January of 1992
to set up Chenal's accounts, perform bookkeeping functions,
supervise Chenal's outside payroll service, coordinate payroll for
a separate entity owned by ARMSTRONG, and assist in the
development of business plans primarily to locate investment
opportunities. Subsequently, as a principal and associate in
Adelson, Voigts & Associates ("AVAil), VOIGTS assisted in the
preparation of a business plan to establish a medical claims
factoring company, participated in analysis of potential
acquisitions, including an electronic claims processing company
and CompUCheck, Inc. Prior to ARMSTRONG'S acquisition of
CornpUCheck, VOIGTS assisted CampUCheck's accounting department in
preparing its books for an aUdit, met with potential investors,
reviewed sale documents, assisted with due diligence, and met with
CompUCheck's officers regarding the liquidation of a bank debt.
After ARMSTRONG acquired CompUCheck on October 1, 1992, VOIGTS
became a director and, as of January 1, 1993, a vice president.
Although not the chief financial officer, VOIGTS was responsible
for top-level review of financial information in connection with
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 13 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
I-
IJ..
11
0
a::
12
U
Z
<! 13
m
..• )( 14
15
...
~
16
w
0
-
17
Ul
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
aUditing functions and the filing of 10k reports. He also
assisted in financial analyses for a business plan and operations
of CC Entertainment and Promotions, which became a subsidiary of
CompUCheck. VOIGTS also worked on potential acquisitions. VOIGTS
resigned his positions on July 31, 1993.
INTERROGATORY NO.9:
Describe in detail all services and advice provided by YOU in
connection with any proposed or actual business plan or strategy
for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled
by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.9:
See VOIGTS' Response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
herein by reference. Except as identified in response to
Interrogatory No.8, VOIGTS responds that he was not engaged to,
and did not, provide services and advice in connection with any
proposed or actual business plan or strategy for HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. PEAT
MARWICK did provide advice related to the accounting theory
applicable to a proposed real estate investment plan involving
zero coupon bonds. VOIGTS also had discussions with ARMSTRONG
regarding the corporate organization of the various entities in
light of ARMSTRONG's business plan or strategy, but he did not
provide any services or advice with respect to what that plan or
strategy should be.
III
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET ,OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 14 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
0

U
12
z

13 w
u
m

14
7

15

I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Describe in detail all tax advice and tax services,
including, without limitation, tax planning and preparation of tax
returns, that you provided for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
See VOIGTS# response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
herein by reference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Describe in detail all services or advice,
including, without limitation, advice regarding accounting for
intercompany transactions, that YOU provided for or on behalf of
HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
See VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 incorporated
herein by reference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Describe in detail all services and advice provided by YOU in
connection with any and all loans or transfers of funds by
HAMILTON TAFT to ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 15 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
0
OC
U
12
z

13 w
u
rn

14
o _.l(

IS
,

16
w
0
-
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence.
VOIGTS further objects this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
grounds that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the' preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from Peat's workpapers, which were previously produced
to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these documents
would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. to, and
without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds
that he is not aware of any professional services or advice
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in his
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any services
or advice provided to ARMSTRONG or any entities controlled by
ARMSTRONG in connection with any loans or transfers of funds by
HAMILTON TAFT.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify all transactions or proposed transactions in
connection with which YOU provided advice or performed any
investigation or due diligence for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT,
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 16 -
- 17 -
ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and dppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it p u r p o r t ~ to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: VOIGTS is not aware of any professional
services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those contained in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
transactions or proposed transactions in connection with which
VOIGTS provided advice or performed any investigation or due
diligence for or on behalf of HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, except: DataccDunt
2 businessman's review, and tax and/or accounting advice with
3 respect to the oil and gas leases as reflected in VOIGTS' Response
4 to Interrogatory No. 16 herein.
5
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
7 Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
8 advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase by or on
9 behalf of ARMSTRONG of the Double C Ranch in Tyler, Texas.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
~
~
o
~
u
z
~ ~
~ m
~
o ~
J
4
I
w
o
~
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad anc burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
18 burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
19 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
20 summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
21 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
22 further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
23 necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
24 abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
25 inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
26 produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
27 documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
28 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 18 -
responds that he is not aware of any professional services
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related to Double C
Ranch in Tyler, Texas. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
related to the ranch, except that VOIGTS was told, after the ranch
had been purchased, that the ranch had been purchased for
substantially less than the seller's investment, with the
intention of raising cattle for commercial sale.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or other
transactions with Mohamed Hadid by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned
or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the around that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 19 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
rr
u
12
Z
m
~ 13 w
u
m
~
~
14
o . ~
~
~
IS
~
I
16
w
0
-
17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to Mohamed Hadid. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related
to Hadid, except that, in the course of the audit of HAMILTON
TAFT's March 31, 1989 balance sheet, the balance sheet showed a
receivable from Hadid to HAMILTON TAFT. Later, as reflected in
HAMILTON TAFT's June 30, 1989 balance sheet, the Hadid debt had
been transferred to Dresdner and a note receivable from Dresdner
was reflected on the balance sheet. VOIGTS was told that Dresdner
was attempting to collect on the debt.
III
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 20 -
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
Z
~
q
13 w
u
m
~
~
14 o .X
l
•~
IS
I
16
w
0
-
17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of or
investment in oil and gas leasehold interests by ARMSTRONG or any
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the phrase "with respect to the acquisition of or investment
in." VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad
and burdensome 'in that it seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, inclUding from PEAT HARWICK'S workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 21 -
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
I1
0
~
U
12
z
~ 13
m
~ ' ~
14
15
,
!
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to acquisition of or investment in oil and gas
leasehold interests by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG, except: VOIGTS was told of Dresdner's
investment in an oil and gas lease and that the lease was expected
to yield significant profits. VOIGTS was told that the land had
proven reserves which would pay back the acquisition and
extraction costs quickly and that the lease was acquired cheaply
because the prior owner could not afford to pay for water
flooding. Later, VOIGTS was told that water flooding was not
necessary, and that the property was producing oil. VOIGTS
believes that around the time the transaction was consummated, he
provided some advice relating to tax andlor accounting
implications. VOIGTS does not recall the substance of that
advice.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to leans to or investment in
or acquisition of Parker Automotive by ARMSTRONG or any entities
owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 22 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
z
~
~ 13 ~
u
m
~
~
14
o . ~
~
~
IS
,
~
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it· is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discoveryJto date in this or any
~
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to loans to or investment in or acquisition of Parker Automotive
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 23 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
0

U
12
z
13
m
14
15

I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
26
27
28
by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or by ARMSTRONG.
Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to Parker
Automotive, except: VOIGTS was told of the investment in Parker
Automotive, a public company. VOIGTS was told that the investment
was expected to yield significant profits. VOIGTS was nominated
to the board of directors of Parker Automotive without his
knowledge or consent. When he found out, he immediately insisted
that his name be withdrawn as a candidate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Describe in detail facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of real
estate projects from the Resolution Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG
or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 24 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
OC
12
U
z
~
~ 13 w
~
m
~
~
14
o -'(
J
•~
15
I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to the acquisition of real estate projects from the Resolution
Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled
by ARMSTRONG other than those services identified in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 related to the attempted "zero
coupon bond" deal. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
related to RTC properties, except: VOIGTS was told of the
acquisition of an RTC property in San Antonio.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in
Professional Investment Fund.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 25 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
z
~ 13
m
.1(
14
15
~
16
w
a
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 35,
which VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference. specifically,
VOIGTS is not aware of any professional services provided to
H A M I J ~ O N TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an
interest with respect to loans to or investment in Professional
Investment Fund other than PEAT HARWICK's work related to the
Dresdner note receivable as reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers
including, but not limited to, those bates stamped PM007325-26i
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 26 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
II
a
~
u
12
Z
~
~ 13 w
~
m
~
~
14
o . ~
~
~
15
!
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PM007410i PM007431i PM006975-77i PM006255-59i PM002110-2114i
PM002508-2509i PM007003-7015i PMOOI027-104J.
The above-referenced workpapers do not reflect any services
or advice provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in
which ARMSTRONG had an interest with respect to any determination
to make loans to or investments in Professional Investment Fund.
In addition to what is reflected in the workpapers, VOIGTS was
told that ARMSTRONG was getting out of the partnership because of
disagreements with the other owners.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to, investment in or
acquisition of River city Fair in San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG
or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
V01GTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than V O I G ~ S on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 27 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
r
~
11
0
~
12
U
z
~ 13
m
_ . ~
14
IS
L
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in Which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to loans to, investment in or acquisition of River city Fair in
San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
related to River City Fair, except: VOIGTS was told that, prior
to ARMSTRONG's acquisition of HAMILTON TAFT, HAMILTON TAFT had a
pre-existing interest in River City Fair. VOIGTS was told that
the project was being developed, that the development costs
exceeded budget, and that the partners had some disagreement
regarding who would put up the additional funds. VOIGTS was
familiar with the physical facility, location and concept of River
city Fair. He knew that similar ventures had been very popular.
III
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 28 -
2
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
3 advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of
4 interests in Rodeo Partners and Pro Rodeo, Inc. by ARMSTRONG or
5 any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
7 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
8 overbroad and burdensome seeks information which is neither
9 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
15 grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS

I.L
o
£r
U
Z
<{
m
...

W
o
(f)
11
12
13
14
16
17
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
18 other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
19 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
20 interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
21 compilation, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
22 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
23 previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
24 list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
25 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
26 Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
27 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
28 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 29 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
Z
~
( 13 ~
u
m
~
~
14 0
~
!
15
i
16
w
a
-
17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to the acquisition of interests in Rodeo Partners
and Pro Rodeo, Inc. by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to political and charitable
contributions made by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 30 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
z
~ 13
m
. ~ 14
~
15
i
~
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS
1
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to political and charitable contributions made by ARMSTRONG. Nor
was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to any such political
and charitable contributions, except: VOIGTS was told that
ARMSTRONG had made contributions to a Texas gubernatorial
candidate and to a charitable youth organization.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to members of the
McCall family of Plano, Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned
or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 31 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
rr
u
12
z
~
~ 13 ~
~
m
~
~
14 o ,,11
J
~
15
I
16
w
a
-
17
W
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to loans to members of the McCall family of Plano,
Texas by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 32 -
- 33 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL.
11
0
a::
12
U
z
til
~ 13 ...
u
m
.:
...
14 o tJt
J ,"
«'
.J
15
~
16
w
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Weir Bros., an excavation company in Dallas, Texas, by ARMSTRONG
or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
--------------------
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
2 to loans to or investment in Weir Bros., an excavation company in
3 Dallas, Texas, by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
4 ARMSTRONG. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to
5 Weir Bros., except: After the decision had been made to make the
6 acquisition, VOIGTS was told that Weir Bros. had been purchased,
7 that it had contracts, and that it presented favorable business
8 opportunities.
9
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
~
~
o
oc
u
z
~ (
~ m
~
~ - ~
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase of football
stadium boxes at Texas Stadium by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned
or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
18 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
20 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
21 is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
22 interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
23 or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
24 grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
25 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
26 require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
27 other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
28 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 34 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
....
~
11
0
cr
U
12
z
<i 13
m
.l(
14
(
15
~
16
w
a
-
17
U}
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to the purchase of football stadium boxes at Texas
stadium by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to or investment in
Ccffea International by ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 35 -
II
"
II
II
I'
II
2 I
31
I,
4 i
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL
11
0
IX
12
U
Z
~ 13
m
_ . ~
14
.
15
.(
I
16
w
0
-
17
(1)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to loans to or investment in Coffea International by
ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the proposed acquisition by
ARMSTRONG or entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG of real
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 36 -
estate from financial institutions by a method involving zero-
coupon u.s. Treasury bonds or stripped securities, including,
without limitation, any participation by YOU in presentations to,
or the preparation of presentation m a t e r i a l ~ for, prospective
sellers.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome ann seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities .other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 37 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
OC
12
U
z
~
( 13 ~
u
m
~
~
14 0
~
~
15
~
I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or
facts related to the proposed acquisition by ARMSTRONG or entities
owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG of real estate from financial
institutions by a method involving zero-coupon u.s. Treasury bonds
or stripped securities other than those services identified in
VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B concerning the advice
related to the accounting theory applicable to a proposed
investment strategy involving zero-coupon bonds. PEAT M A R W I ~ K
advised ARMSTRONG that PEAT MARWICK could not issue an opinion
concurring with the accounting treatment proposed by ARMSTRONG and
his executives. VOIGTS was not aware of, and does not recall
having any involvement in, presentations to, or the preparation of
presentation materials for, prospective sellers, except: VOIGTS
was told that Remington had some formal discussions with banks,
but was told that for the transaction to be feasible, it had to be
shown on the bank's books as a sale. VOIGTS does not recall
participating in any such discussions. VOIGTS does not recall
ever seeing any presentation materials, but believes that he was
told that presentation materials were being put together.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the reorganization or
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 38 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
f-
lJ.
11
0
rr
u
12
z
III
<{
13 10I
U
m

...
14 (I-
,
;..
15
c{

16
w
0
-
17
Ul
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
restructuring of the various entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory -to the extent it seeks information in the
or control of individuals or other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, ARMSTRONG asked
VOIGTS if there were any differences between HAMILTON TAFT being
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 39 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
II
0
~
U
12
Z
~
~ 13 w
u
m
~
~
14 o - - ~
~
15
L
16
w
0
-
17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
owned as a sister corporation to the Texas companies and HAMILTON
TAFT being a parent or sUbsidiary of the Texas companies. VOIGTS
advised ARMSTRONG that, aside from some differences in accounting
treatment, there would be no material difference because the same
information would have to be disclosed on audited financial
statements either way.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice providea by YOU with respect to the use of HAMILTON TAFT
assets to fund general operating expenses of other entities owned
or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further Objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 40 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL
11
0
cr
12
U
z
111
«
13 ...
~
m
...
l&.
14
~ - - , ' \
15
I
16
w
0
-
17
U)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 8 which
VOIGTS incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is
not aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to the use of HAMILTON TAFT assets to fund general operating
expenses of other entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG. Nor
was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related to the use of HAMILTON
TAFT assets to fund general operating expenses of other entities,
except: VOIGTS was told that the acquisitions were generating
income, but he did not know to what extent that income was used
for operating expenses. VOIGTS assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds
were used for operating expenses, but did not know to what extent.
INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to the issuance of bonds in
October 1990 to HAMILTON TAFT by The Remington Companies, Inc.,
Dresdner Petroleum, Inc., and Winthrop Realty.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 41 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
z
~ 13
m
IJI 14
15
L
16
w
0
-
17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
is compound and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest and has
no recollection of facts related to the issuance of bonds in
October 1990 to HAMILTON TAFT by The Remington Companies, Inc.,
Dresdner Petroleum, Inc., and winthrop Realty, except that a
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 42 -
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
lJ..
11
0
a::
u
12
Z
«
13
m
. ~ 14
15
!
16
w
0
-
17
Ul
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
company in Kansas City may have been considering a financing
arrangement involving bonds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
Identify all instances in which YOU advised ARMSTRONG or any
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG not to make an
investment, acquisition, loan or expenditure or that it would be
improper, unlawful or imprudent to make an investment,
acquisition, loan or expenditure, including, without limitation,
YOUR reasons f ~ r such advice.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
as to the words "improper" and "imprudent." VOIGTS also objects
that it calls for a legal conclusion as to the phrase "illegal."
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further
objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
in the possession or control of individuals or entities other than
VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in
this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding
to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the
making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from
PEAT MARWICK's documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 43 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
....
lL
11
0
It
U
12
z
<{ 13
CD
.•J( 14
15
2:
16
w
a
-
17
(/)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which were previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of
compiling the list of these documents would be the same for
plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these
and his General objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware
of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG
or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. B which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. VOIGTS was informed and
believed that HAMILTON TAFT was acting in accordance with the
advice of its counsel and was making its own determinations as to
the use of its funds. HAMILTON TAFT did not seek PEAT MARWICK's
or VOIGTS' advice in connection with such determinations, and tJ
VOIGTS' knowledge, neither VOIGTS nor PEAT MARWICK ever gave any
such advice. PEAT MARWICK was asked for advice related to the
accounting for a proposed real estate transaction involving zero
coupon bonds. PEAT MARWICK advised ARMSTRONG that the accounting
ARMSTRONG had proposed for the proposed transaction was not
feasible.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
advice provided by YOU with respect to any personal expenditures,
investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous,
especially with respect to the phrase "personal expenditures."
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
burdensome in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 44 -
,/' -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
0
OC
U
12
z

13 w
u
rn

14 0
_,J(

15
i
16
w
0
-
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
re
to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. VOIGTS further
objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is compound
and includes sUbparts. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's
documents, including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
reflected in VOIGT3' response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 which VOIGTS
incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
aware of any professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT,
ARMSTRONG, or entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest related
to any personal investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG.
Nor is VOIGTS aware of any facts related to any personal
investments or acquisitions made by ARMSTRONG, except: ARMSTRONG
told VOIGTS that he had an interest in a building in Los Angeles
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

- 45 -
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL
11
0
cr
U
12
z
1/1
c{ 13 10I
u
[{)
...
?- .Ji
14
-
15
t
i
16
w
0
-
17
U)
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that had been refinanced, which provided income to ARMSTRONG.
ARMSTRONG told Voigts that he had managed some Grandy's
restaurants and had received some income for that. VOIGTS
believed that ARMSTRONG drew salaries from HAMILTON TAFT and the
Texas companies. VOIGTS had no knowledge of any personal
expenditures of ARMSTRONG for major purchases or luxury goods,
except that, after the Double C Ranch was purchased, VOIGTS
learned that title to the ranch was in ARMSTRONG'S name, pledged
as security for a note to HAMILTON TAFT.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
Describe in detail any business opportunities or proposed
investments, acquisitions or other transactions that YOU found for
or presented to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 46 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
U
12
Z
~
( 13 u
~
m
~
~
14 o -.
~
~
15
I
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he is not aware of any professional services
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to
any business opportunities or proposed investments, acquisitions
or other transactions that VOIGTS found for or presented to
HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG, except: VOIGTS introduced the Park Row Shopping Center
transaction to Remington. Contrary to plaintiff's accusations in
this lawsuit, had Remington pursued the deal, VOIGTS did not stand
to benefit financially. Remington did not pursue the deal.
VOIGTS also informed ARMSTRONG of a potential short-term
investment to fund an airplane purchase. VOIGTS does not recall
informing ARMSTRONG of any other potential investments. In none
of the above instances did VOIGTS recommend or advise ARMSTRONG or
Remington to make the investment.
//1
//1
/11
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 47 -
- 48 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL.
11
0
((
12
U
z
1/1
« 13 !oJ
U
m
IL
II.
14 o - . ~
-
15
(
~
16
w
0
-
17
If)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
Describe in detail any services or advice (including, without
limitation, accounting advice) provided by YOU with respect to the
transfer by HAMILTON TAFT to Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. of
receivables totalling approximately $18.9 million and the issuance
of a promissory note in a similar amount from Dresdner
Enterprises, Inc. to HAMILTON TAFT.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he is not aware of any professional services
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in w h i ~ h
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
/-,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
LL
11
0
0:
12
U
z
III
4: 13 kl
U
m
~
...
14
o .'<t
J
j
15
!
16
w
0
-
17
(f)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to
the transfer by HAMILTON TAFT to Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. of
receivables totalling approximately $18.9 million and the issuance
of a promissory note in a similar amount from Dresdner
Enterprises, Inc. to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts
reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited
to, those bates stamped PM007325-26j PM007410i PM007431: PM006975-
77: PM006255-59; PM002110-2114: PM00250B-2509; PM007003-7015;
PMOOI027-1043.
INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
Describe in detail YOUR investigation (including, without
limitation, all documents reviewed and physical inspections
performed) relating to and the factual basis for YOUR assessment
that the $6 million investment by Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. in
the Professional Investment Fund joint venture was worth in excess
of $18 million and that the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. note to
HAMILTON TAFT was therefore fully secured.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 49 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
lL.
11
a
0:
U
12
z
«
13
m
_l(
14
-
15
~
16
w
0
-
17
If)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
inclUding from' PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he is not aware of any professional services
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to
the Professional Investment Fund or the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc.
note to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts reflected in PEAT
MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited to, those bates
stamped PM007325-26i PM007410i PM007431i PM006975-77i PM006255-59;
PM002110-2114i PM002508-2509i PM007003-7015j PMOOI027-1043j
PM003401-3496. VOIGTS did no independent investigation and made
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 50 -
---.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I-
tL
11
0
cr
U
11
Z
<{
13
m
~ 1 t '
14
<{
15
l:
16
w
0
-
17
(f)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- --- .... __..-.. -- ~ ... ~ . _ .. .,..
no "assessment
ll
relating to the PIF properties because that was
beyond the scope of the work PEAT MARWICK was engaged to perform.
INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
Describe with particularity (including, without limitation,
the value of) all assets of Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. in 1989
that could assure repayment of its $18 million debt to HAMILTON
TAFT, other than its investment in Professional Investment Fund.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is undUly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he is not aware of any professional services
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 51 -
provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or entities in which
2 ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those reflected in VOIGTS'
3 response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS incorporates herein
4 by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not aware of any
5 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG, or
6 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest or facts related to
7 the Professional Investment Fund or the Dresdner Enterprises, Inc.
8 note to HAMILTON TAFT other than those facts reflected in PEAT
9 MARWICK's workpapers, including, but not limited to, those bates
10 stamped PM007325-26; PM007410; PM007431; PM00697S-77; PM006255-59;
14 its work in connection with its review of HAMILTON TAFT's balance
l-
LL
o
Ir
U
Z
~
m
~
L
w
o
(fJ
11
12
13
15
16
17
PM002110-2114; PM002508-2509; PM007003-70l5; PM001027-l043;
PM003407-3496.
In particular, at the time that PEAT HARWICK was performing
sheet as of June 3D, 1989 (the "June 30 Balance Sheet
tl
), PEAT
MARWICK understood that Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. ("Oresdner
n
)
was pledging the notes that it had acquired from Hamilton Taft &
18 company as collateral for Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft &
19 Company. In addition, Dresdner's debt to Hamilton Taft & Company
20 was collateralized by the interest of CCAJ Corporation in a joint
21 venture called Professional Investment Fund (IIPIF"). PIF owned
22 interests in approximately 100 partnerships which in turn owned
23 approximately 100 shopping centers located primarily in the
24 southern United states.
25 In connection with its review of the June 30 Balance Sheet,
26 PEAT HARWICK was informed by Hamilton Taft & Company in writing
27 that there was sufficient collateral to conclude that the debt
28 from Dresdner to Hamilton Taft & Company would be repaid. PEAT
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 52 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
~
11
0
~
lZ
U
z
~
~ 13 w
u
m
~
,
~
14 0
~
~
15
~
~
16
w
0
-
17
m
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HARWICK relied on the written representations of Hamilton Taft &
Company in connection with its review procedures and performed
additional analytical procedures which did not indicate a basis
for questioning the representations of Hamilton Taft & Company in
this regard. Because PEAT HARWICK's work was performed in
connection with a review engagement, PEAT MARWICK did not conclude
or opine that Dresdner or CCAJ had sufficient assets to assure
repayment of its debt to Hamilton Taft & Company, and its review
report so reflects.
INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
state all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform an
acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT, including, without limitation,
the identities of all persons who worked on the engagement, all
communications regarding the nature and extent of the services to
be performed, the uses to which the audit report was to be put,
and the persons to whom the audit report or the contents thereof
were intended to be or were actually communicated.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdQnsome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 53 -
, .
f •
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I- 10
IJ.. -
o ~ 11
a:
U ~ 12
Z
~ <t:: 13
g m
(;.1C ~ 14
~ "
~
~ ~ 15
L ~
Wi 16
o
in 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General objections, VOIGTS
responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform
this audit. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
engagement are reflected in PEAT HARWICK's workpapers. The
auditors on the engagement were as follows: Keith L. Voigts,
partner; Mark Austin, manager; Bob Teh, senior: Erin Murray, staff
assistant, and Lisa Rego, staff assistant. The engagement letter,
bates stamped PM006629-32, defines the intended scope of the
engagement. The audit report, bates stamped PM007349-7357,
defines the scope of the services that were performed, directed to
the stockholders of HAMILTON TAFT and speaks for itself. VOIGTS
was told that the audit was being performed to establish a
benchmark for the date that HAMILTON TAFT was acquired by
ARMSTRONG. VOIGTS had no knOWledge of any intended or actual
external uses or external disclosures.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
State all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform audits
of HAMILTON TAFT as of year-end 1989 and year-end 1990, including,
without limitation, the identities of all persons who worked on
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET 'OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 54 -
r'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
10
l-
lL. ~
o ~
11
a:
U ~
12
z
~ : 13
m:'
0
...
14
~ ..
~ oJ
15
~ -
wr 16
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
these engagements, all communications regarding the nature and
extent of the services to be performed, the uses to which the
audit reports were to be put, and the persons to whom the audit
reports or the contents thereof were intended to be or were
actually communicated.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform
audit work. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers. PEAT
MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 55 -
ended December 31, 1990. Rather, because the 1989 audit had not
2 II been completed, at some point, PEAT HARWICK and the company
3 II discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a
4 II one-year period. That audit was never completed. The auditors on
5 II the engagement were as follows: Keith L. voigts, partner; Mark
6 II Austin, manager; Erin Murray and Kristin Conover, seniors and
7 II Kelly Jensen, assistant. VOIGTS had no knowledge of any uses to
8 11 which the audit reports were to be put, or any persons to whom the
9 II audit reports or the contents thereof were intended to be or were
10 II actually commuhicated.
l-
lL
o
a:
u
z
c:(
m
----1\
~
~
w
o
(fJ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
state all facts regarding why YOUR audits of HAMILTON TAFT as
of year-end 1989 and year-end 1990 were never completed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
1811 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
19 II calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
20 II VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
21 II seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
22 II entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
23 II burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
2411 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
2S II summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
2611 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
27 II further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
2811 necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 56 -
,r--
Z
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
I-
10
It.. -
O ~
11
((
U ~
12
z
~ ~ 13
m::'
0
or
.-1( ~
14
<{ J
15
~ -
Wi 16
0
-
17
Ul
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that PEAT HARWICK, not VOIGTS, was engaged to perform
audit work. VOIGTS' professional services related to that
engagement are reflected in PEAT MARWICK's workpapers. PEAT
MARWICK did not undertake a separate engagement for the period
ended December· 31, 1990. Rather, because the 1989 audit had not
been completed, at some point, PEAT MARWICK and the company
discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a
one-year period. That audit was never completed. PEAT HARWICK's
reasons for not completing that audit are summarized in PEAT
HARWICK's workpapers including, but not limited to, those bates
stamped PM001424. PEAT HARWICK could not complete its audit
examination of the financial statements of HAMILTON TAFT as of and
for the years ended December 31, 1989 and December 31, 1990
because Hamilton Taft & Company did not supply PEAT MARWICK with
information PEAT HARWICK requested from Hamilton Taft & Company
and did not otherwise manifest an intent to proceed with the
completion of the audit. Ultimately, HAMILTON TAFT informed PEAT
MARWICK directly that it did not wish to proceed with the audit.
INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
Describe all circumstances in which YOU knew of or allowed
the use of PEAT HARWICK's name by HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG in connection with any
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 57 -
·.
2
)
4
5
6
7
8
9
l-
10
l.L •
O ~
11
a:
U ~
12
z
t1 <{ ~
13
u '"
i;: lD
It..
( 1 . - . ~ ~ 14
:r.
ii
«~
15
:l: -
Wi 16
0
-
17
(J)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
actual or proposed business transactions with third parties.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and. oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he performed professional services as listed in
VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No.8. VOIGTS is unaware of the
uses for which HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities
utilized PEAT MARWICK's audit or review reports. VOIGTS was told
that ARMSTRONG was contemplating listing PEAT HARWICK as
Remington's auditor on a Remington brochure. VOIGTS does not
III
III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 58 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL.

11
a:
U'::
12
Z
13

"( ..
14
<t: -'
15
L-
16
0
-
17
U)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recall seeing any such brochure. See also VOIGTS' Response to
Interrogatory No. 41, which is incorporated herein by reference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
Describe all communications between YOU and any actual or
prospective client of HAMILTON TAFT regarding the business or
financial condition of HAMILTON TAFT.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he had two brief conversations with people who
identified themselves as actual or prospective clients of HAMILTON
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 59 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
ll. -
o~ 11
lr
U ~ 12
z
~ <{:; 13
~ lD
~ ..... ~ : ' i 14
r
o
... ~ 15
i:-
wi 16
o
Vi 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TAFT in which VOIGTS stated that HAMILTON TAFT paid its bills to
PEAT MARWICK on time and that, as far as he knew, ARMSTRONG had
never lied to him. When asked, VOIGTS stated that he was not
authorized to comment upon HAMILTON TAFT's financial situation.
One conversation was with a woman who said she had formerly worked
for a Big Eight accounting firm. The other was with a man. Both
conversations were over the phone. Neither was initiated by
VOIGTS. Both occurred sometime between May 1, 1989 and
December 31, 1990.
INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
Describe in detail YOUR involvement in the Advisory Board Lf
Directors of Dresdner Enterprises, Inc. and/or The Remington
Companies, Inc., including, without limitation, the nature of YOUR
role in connection with said Advisory Board, all meetings YOU
attended, all topics and transactions or proposed transactions
discussed and all issues addressed at all meetings YOU attended
r
and all circumstances surrounding YOUR participation in the
Advisory Board.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects that this interrogatory is compound and
contains subparts. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory
to the extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 60 -
I •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
....
LL

11
a:

IZ
Z
« 13
m
... ..
14 o ._,11

4
-

'(
15

wi: 16
0
-
17
lJJ
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents woula be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. SUbject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that he attended two or three Advisory Board meetings as
a guest, for the purpose of keeping generally familiar with what
the companies were doing so that PEAT HARWICK could complete an
audit efficiently when instructed to do so. VOIGTS also attended
to comment on accounting issues should they arise. VOIGTS does
not recall making any such comments. VOIGTS is aware of no other
involvement with the Advisory Board, except: VOIGTS recalls some
discussion of the zero coupon bond proposal and of Remington's
general business strategy. VOIGTS does not recall any specific
transactions or proposed transactions being discussed. VOIGTS
recalls giving ARMSTRONG, at ARMSTRONG'S request, some names of
people who might be interested in sitting on the board, inclUding
Joe Sullivan.
INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
Identify all fees (including amounts of fees, services for
which fees were paid, and persons or entities for or on behalf of
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 61 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.... _ 10
lL. -
o~ 11
[r
U ~ 12
Z
~ ~ : 13
~ m
~ .1( ~ 14
~ Cl
• r
o
<t ~ 15
I -
W i 16
o
U; 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whom services were performed) received by or paid to YOU by
HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG and all entities owned or controlled by
ARMSTRONG from January 1988 until the present.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for
information relating to events sUbsequent to VOIGTS' separation
from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS declines to give any such
information. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the
extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
inclUding from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for p l a i ~ t i f f as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: PEAT MARWICK was retained by HAMILTON TAFT
and the other entities owned by ARMSTRONG, not VOIGTS. All fees
for PEAT MARWICK'S services were paid to PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS.
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 62 -

("
2
PEAT MARWICK has previously produced to plaintiff its bills which
reflect its billings for professional services for HAMILTON TAFT,
J II ARMSTRONG and any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
4 II VOIGTS has produced documents which reflect all fees paid to him
5 II personally, subsequent to VOIGTS' separation from PEAT HARWICK, by
6 II other entities in which he believed ARMSTRONG had an interest.
7
8 II INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
9 II Identify (inclUding, without limitation, name, current
10 II address and telephone nUmber, position with PEAT HARWICK and
t-
LL
o
a::
u
z
<{
m
..
IL
o,....-l(
(
<{

w
o
(fJ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
location of PEAT MARWICK office where employed) each employee,
partner and agent of PEAT MARWICK who worked on any PEAT MARWICK
engagement with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
controlled by ARMSTRONG.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
VOIGTS objects to this as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
18
11 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2011 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
21 II seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
2211 entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
23 burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
2411 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
25 II summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
2611 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
27 II further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
28 necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 63 -
f.o
,-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I-
10
l1..

11
a:

12
z
13

0
14
0
:<
Ci
«
15
L
wi: 16
0
-
U)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
abstract, audit, or summary of or from MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT HARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds that PEAT HARWICK's Supplemental Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 44, which VOIGTS hereby incorporates by
reference, lists all the persons who may have participated in any
engagement.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
As to each individual identified in YOUR response to
Interrogatory No. 44, describe with particularity the work
performed or services provided for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, including the nature of
the engagement in connection with which such work or services were
performed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 64 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l-
lL -
0;:; 11
a:
u ~ 12
Z
~ ~ ~ 13
~ m
~ - - ' ~ ;:: 14
~
~
"' ~ 15
L -
w• 16
o
lil 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
further objects that responding to this interrogatory would
necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT MARWICK's documents,
including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the list of these
documents would be the same for plaintiff as for VOIGTS. Subject
to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
responds as follows: See PEAT MARWICK's Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory No. 44, incorporated herein by reference.
INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
Describe in detail the circumstances (including, without
limitation, the date and reasons) surrounding the termination,
withdrawal or resignation of VOIGTS as a partner and/or employee
of PEAT MARWICK.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
VOIGTS Objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
purports to require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in
this or any other action on the ground that it is unduly
burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by
VOIGTS' right to privacy under the California Constitution or
seeks information contained in VOIGTS' personnel file in violation
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
F l h 3 ~ SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 65 -
( "
, .
2
II
Il
of his right to privacy. Subject to, and without waiving these
and his General Objections, VOIGTS responds as follows: PEAT
3 II MARWICK has previously produced to plaintiff Mr. VOIGTS' personnel
4 1\ file. VOIGTS retired from PEAT HARWICK on May 1, 1991 as part of
5 II PEAT MARWICK's streamlining program in which it significantly
6 II reduced its partnership.
7
8 II INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
9 II Describe in detail all business relationships between YOU and
10 II ARMSTRONG at all times up to and including the date hereof.
l-
lL
o
0:
U
Z
~ ~
~ m
lL
...
~ . - 1 J ' i
-.t
I
w
a
Ul
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
relevant to the SUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Specifically in this regard, VOIGTS objects to the request for
information relating to events subsequent to VOIGTS' separation
1811 from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS is therefore not supplying any such
19 II information in this response. VOIGTS further objects to this
2011 interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the possession
21 II or control of individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the
22 grounds that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
23 II further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
2411 require VOIGTS to summarize the discovery to date in this or any
25 II other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
2611 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
2711 interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
2811 compilation, abstract, aUdit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
~ : ~ ~ ~ SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 66 -
I I
services identified in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 and
other responses herein. VOIGTS is not aware of any other business
relationships with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or ARMSTRONG entities
While VOIGTS' was a partner with PEAT MARWICK.
documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
list of these documents would be the same for plaintiff as for
VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
Objections, VOIGTS responds that he performed the professional
DANIEL E'. KRITZ V
By:
Attorneys for Defendant
KEITH L. VOIGTS
Respectfully submitted,
SIDEMAN & BANCROFT
A Partnership Including
Professional Corporations
Dated: November 5l, 1994
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
... _ 10
lL -
o~ 11
lr
U ~ 12
Z
~ ~ : : 13
~ m
~ ,.J( ; 14
c
~ ~ 15
L _
wi: 16
a
lO 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
!I
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
~ ' ' : : : ' : - ' ' : ' ~ B T OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 67 -
- '"
I'
VERIFICATION
(" - 2
3
I, Keith L. VOIGTS, am the defendant in this proceeding. I
4 II have read the foregoing DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL
5 II RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES and
6 II know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge,
7 II except as to those matters which are therein stated on information
8 and belief, and as to those natters, I believe them to be true.
, California.
--------------
state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
I under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
I-
u..
o
a:
u
z
«
!:I m
"
l<1

9
10
11
12
13
14
Executed this day of November, 1994, at

w
o
If)
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KEITH L. VOIGTS
DEK:sa/mp:1992/P/94.0262
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
- 69 -

.....
...- <..
.
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY HANO
,,--.
z
I, the undersigned, state that I am employed in the City and
3 County of San Francisco, State of california, in the office of a
4 member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service
5 was made; that I am over the age of eighteen years and not, a party
6 to the within action; that my business address is One Embarcadero
7 center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, California 94111; that on the
8 date set out below, I caused to be served true copies of the
9 attached document{s)
l-
LL
o
a:
u
z

(J)
It.
(;

I

W
o
(/)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DEFENOANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF FORM
on the person(s) listed below, by hand-delivering said true copy
to and at the offices ot the person(s) forth below:
Dale Barnes, Jr., Esq.
Mary Huser, Esq.
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
Three Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Richard L. Jaeger, Esq.
Laura Grad, Esq.
Feldman, Waldman & Kline
Russ Building, 27th Floor
235 Montgomery street
San Francisco, CA 94104
bLserYl. /.¥2-2a<ve.
[Type or print)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
California, this correct. Executed at San Francisco,
of l!J21J/ ,

[Signature]
and
day
25
26
2.7
28
21
22
23
2.4
.f"
II
t3d-4
rCJJ}L (0 q

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful