V. § 294th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COMES NOW, The Law offices of G. David Westfull, P.C., (hereinafter referred to as the "P.C." or "Movant"), Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause and files this its objections to the summary judgment. evidence offered by Udo Birnbaum ("Respondent") in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the P. C. and would hereby show the Court as follows:

3. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his

response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 3 ), for the reason that

he refers to a deposition excerpt which is not attached to the response, not properly authenticated,

and as such is not proper summary judgment evidence.

4. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 4, for the reason that he refers to a deposition excerpt which is not attached to the response, not properly authenticated, and as such is not proper summary judgment evidence.

5~ Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiff s Own Documents, subparagraph 1, for the reason that the allegation of evidence is overly broad and not specific, thus not allowing the Movant an adequate opportunity to respond or object. Also, none of the referred to evidence has been attached to the response, or properly authenticated.

6. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiff s Own Documents, subparagraph 2, for the reason that the allegation of evidence is overly broad and not specific, thus not allowing the Movant an adequate opportunity to respond or object, and also for the reason that the evidence is'a mere conclusion on the part of the Respondent.

7. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiffs Own Documents, subparagraph 3 (al, (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), for the reasons that: the exhibits are not properly authenticated, are not attached to the response, and constitutes unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.

8. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VI: Evidence in Other Documents, s0paragraph 1, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), for the reason that: for the reasons that: the exhibits are not properly authenticated, are not attached to the response, and constitutes unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.

9. Movant objects to the summary judgment evi dence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VII: Summary of Evidence to DTPA "Elements," (1), (2), and (3), for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and any referred to "evidence" is not properly authenticated and not properly attached to the response.

10. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IX: Summary, for the reason that: J refers to exhibits which are not properly authenticated and not attached to the response and as such do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant request that the above objections be in all things sustained, and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which this Movant may show itself justly entitled.

Law Office of G. David Westfall, P.C.'s

Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 3 of 4