, i I i: r I, I,"___I r--J j r 
r A Professional Corporation 1450 Meadow Park Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 214-706-0920 214-706-0921 (FAX) July 9,2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mike Murphy
Public Works Department Town of Addison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Pat Milliken v. City ofAddison TML Claim No. 0200085821 File No. 607-066 Dear Mike: Enclosed I am returning
your original file in this matter. Should you have any questions, comments. or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Enclosure 
CAUSE NO. 02-4715-F PAT MILLIKEN, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, INC. and JON B. COLEMAN, Defendants. § IN THE
DISTRICT COURT § § § § § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § f§ I,§ i§ I§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Al'ID REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Pat Milliken, by and through her attorney of record, Thomas H. Keen, LOOPER REED & MeGRAW, 1601 Elm Street,
Suite 4100, Dallas, 􀁔􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁾􀀠75201. COMES NOW Defendant Town ofAddison ("Defendant" or "Addison") and, pursuant to Rules 196, 197 and 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, timely
files its objections and responses to the interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admissions served by PlaintiffPat Milliken ("Plaintiff" or "Milliken").
In support thereof, Defendant shows the following: 1. General Objections Defendant hereby generally objects to the Directions and Instructions provided by Plaintiff to the extent that
they seek to impose greater obligations upon Defendant than those required under DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORlES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGEl 
the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Defendant hereby incorporates this objection to each and every Interrogatory andlor Request as iffully set forth below. II. Reference of Specific Objections
I I•I 1. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it is overly broad land unduly burdensome in that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information,
documents andlor tangible things that are not reasonably related in scope or time to causes of action that have been asserted, or that may properly be asserted, in this litigation. This
!discovery is improper in that it seeks to impose an unreasonable burden upon Defendant to I produce information, documents andlor tangible things for which there is no reasonable ,
expectation that it will aid in the resolution ofthe dispute between the named parties and the burden. .As such, it constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. The expense ofthe
. proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs ofthe case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake
in the litigation and the importance ofthe proposed discovery in resolving the issues ofthe case. 2. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks
to require Defendant to marshal all oftheir evidence prior to trial and fails to comply with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. See Loflin Y. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145
(Tex.l989). 3. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Requestfor the reason that it is vague and ambiguous in that it fails to define terms essential to a clear understanding
of what information, documents andlor tangible things are being sought from Defendant. 4. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it is multifarious
or contains discreet sub-parts in that it seeks to require Defendant to provide two (2) or more responses for one (1) numbered Interrogatory andlor Request. 5. Defendant objects to this
Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information, documents andlortangiblethings that areprotectedby the attomey-client privilege,
work product privilege or joint defense privilege. 6. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require Defendant to admit or state opinions
as to legal conclusions or propositions oflaw that are not binding on a court and do not preclude either party from proving fact issues. Exparza v. Diaz, 802 S.W.2d 772, 775 (Tex.App.--Houston
[14thDist.] 1990, no writ). 7. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND BEQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 2 
Defendant to provide information, documents andlor tangible things based upon a stated factual premise provided by Plaintiff that is false, misleading or deceptive. 8. Defendant objects
to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information, documents andlor tangible things that are confidential ,andlor proprietary
in nature to Defendant or Defendant's business or that Defendant considers to be a closely protected trade-secret. Defendant will not disclose confidential, proprietary or trade-secret
information. I9. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information, documents andlor tangible things that
are equally I accessible to Plaintiff in that they are matters of public record or are in the possession, or subject to the control, ofthird-parties andlor Plaintiff. Such discovery
is clearly obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, Jess burdensome or less expensive and is only brought to impose upon Defendant unnecessary expenses, harassment
and annoyance. 10. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it is unnecessarily irepetitious, cumulative and duplicative and, given the needs of the
case, the discovery already had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance ofthe issues at stake, I,is unreasonably burdensome and expensive. , II. Defendant objects
to this Interrogatory andlor Request for the reason that it seeks to require Defendant to provide information, documents andlor tangible things that are only discoverable through Rule
194.2 ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Ill. Discovel)' Requests Request for Production No. I. Please IdentifY and produce each and every document You reviewed, or which was submitted
to the Town of Addison as part of the approval process for the subdivision ofDefendants' Lots. This request necessarily includes each and every preliminaryplat, final plat, engineering
drawings, drainage plans, topographic maps, civil engineering drawings, application for approval and other Documents submitted to the Town of Addison as part of the subdivision process.
Response. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 3 
hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARls & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450,
Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Reqllest for Production No.2. Please identify and produce each and every Document the Town ofAddison reviewed in making the determination
thatDefendant Builders drainage plans were adequate. Response. 7. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to
this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request
ofPlaintiff. Request for Production No.3. Please identify and produce the plans, budget, and drainage calculations used to design the storm water drainage facility located at the rear
of the Milliken Property, and installed by Bowman Construction. Response. Subject to, and without without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Derendant hereby produces documents
responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon
the request ofPlaintiff. Interrogatory No.1. Please Describe each and every example ofdrainage remediation work performed on the Milliken Property at the request of the Town of Addison.
Response. 2.,3. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant states that the drainage remediation work performed on the Milliken Property at the request
ofthe DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE
4 
Town of Addison may be ascertained from the documents produced by Defendant herein and Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to tbis Request that are within its possession,
or subject to its control, at MARIs & LANIBR, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Production No.4. Please produce
any settlement agreements or offers of settlement between, memoranda, correspondence relating to, notes of, or any Documents relevant to the agreement between the Town of Addison and
Defendant Builders to construct the drainage facility at the rear of the Milliken Property. Response. 7. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby
produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas,
Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Production No.5. Please produce the contract between the Town of Addison and Bowman Construction Company to install tbe drainage
facility at the rear of the Milliken Property. Response. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request,
if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff.
Request for Production No.6. Please produce all invoices, canceled checks, money orders, purchase requests, and any other indicia of money spent by the Town of Addison on drainage DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGES 
remedial efforts on the Milliken Property. Rem:>onse. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request,
if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff.
Request for Admission No. 1. AdmitthatPlaintiffPatMilliken verbally protested to officials ofthe Town ofAddison, prior to the development ofDefendants' Lots with regard to drainage which
might be generated from Defendants' Lots. Response. Deny. Request for Admission No.2. Admit that Pat Milliken objected to officials ofthe Town of Addison about the grade change being
effected on Defendants' Lots, compared to the natural grade. Response. Admit. Request for Admission No.3. Admit that Defendant Builders raised the elevation of Defendants' Lots above
the natural grade immediately prior to development. Response. Deny. Request for Production No.7. Produce any and all Documents showing the grade changes in Defendants' Lots during the
Relevant Time period. Response. 9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are
within its possession, or subjectto its control, at MARlS & LANJER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. DEFENDANT TOWN OF
ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS At'ID RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 6 
Reguest for ProductionNo, 8. Please produce all topographic ordrainage area maps showing the area contributing to drainage onto or from Defendants' Lots. Response. Subject to, and without
waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARIS
&LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Admission NQ. 4. Admit that the TQwn ofAddison recognized that a
drainage problem had been caused by the development of Defendants' Lots. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant admits that it recQgnized
that adrainage problem had been caused by the actual development of the Developer Defendants' Lots, but denies that any such drainage problem would have been caused by the development
ofthe Developer Defendants' Lots had it followed Defendant's instructions.. Reguest for Admission No.5, Admit that the fire department Qfthe Town of Addison was dispatched tQ help combat
the flQoding and aftermath offlooding atthe Milliken Property on at least one occasion. Response. Admit InterrogatQry No.2. Please IdentifY each and every Person authorized by the Town
of Addison to enter the Milliken Property for the purpose of assessing damage, mitigating damage, evaluating drainage issues, installing drainage systerus, iustalling grass and foliage,
and otherwise relating to the flooding or threatened flooding from Defendants' Lots or the aftermath therefrom. Response. 4. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FmST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
PAGE 7 
states that the following persons are known by Defendant to have entered upon Plaintiff's Property: Ron Whitehead, Chris Terry, Carman Moran, Lynn Chandler, Michael E. Murphy, P.E.,
Steve Chutchian, David Wilde, Slade Strickland, Ron Lee, Joel Sales, Dan Wood, Greg Fenn, Jim Bowman and Scott Edwards of Jim Bowman Construction and Douglas Osbourn of Hollywood Pools.
Reguest for Admission No.6. Admit that after the development of Defendants, Lots, the Milliken Property was flooded at least once. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing
objections, ifany, Defendant admits that Plaintiff's Property flooded during the development oftheDeveloperDefendants' Lots, bul denies that any flooding occurred after the development
of the Developer Defendants' Lois. Request for Admission No.7. Admit that after the development ofthe Defendants' Lots, the Milliken Property flooded at least twice. Response. 3. Defendant
admits that Plaintiff's Property flooded during the development of the Developer Defendants' LOiS, but denies that any flooding occurred af'terthe development ofthe Developer Defendants'
Lots. Request for Production No.9. Please produce any and all weather reports, almanac information, newspaper articles, reports, or other meteorological data related to the relevant
time period which You assert relates in any way to the flooding ofthe Milliken Property. ReSllonse. 9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby
produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARIS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas,
DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OFJNTERROGATORIE8, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 8 
Texas 75231 upon the request of Plaintiff. Interrogatory No.3. Please explain the grade change which existed from Defendants' Lots to the Milliken Property prior to the year 2000. Response.
L, 3., 9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant states that ofthe three (3) lots in question, PlaintifFs Property sets at a point lower than the
other two (2). InterrogatoryNo.4. Pleaseexplaintbe grade change which exists between Defendants' Lots and the Milliken Property currently. Re!l,POnse. 3., 9. Subjectto, and without waiving,
the foregoing objections,ifany, Defendant states that ofthe three (3) lots in question, Plaintiff'sProperty sets at apoint lower than the other two (2). Interrogatory No.5. Please Describe
the drainage issue which arose between Christian Laetner, the fonner ov,'TIer of the property immediately south of Defendant Tbe Preston Group Designer and Builders, Inc.'s lot, and
The Preston Group Designer and Builder, Inc. Response. 1.,9. Subjectto, andwithout waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant states that ground water was seeping through a
newly erected fence several feet below grade. Request for Production No. 10. Produce all Documents relating to the drainage issue with Christian Laetner referred to above. Response.
1.,9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, ifany, that are within its possession, or subject
to its control, at MARls & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 9 
Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Interrogatory No.6. Describe the attributing drainage area served by the drainage improvement installed at the rear of the Milliken Property.
Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant i states thattheattributingdrainage area served bythe drainage improvement may be ascertained
from I the documents produced by Defendant herein and Defendant hereby produces documents responsive I to this Request that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARIS
& LANIER, P.C., ! 1 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. ! f Interrogatory No.7. Describe the capacity ofthe drainage improvement
installed at the rear ofthe Milliken Property. Response. 3. SUbject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant ststes that, the capacity is based on a 100 year
event in drainage area highlighted in Kyle Korey's drainage area map dated January 28, 2002. The map indicates flow during a 100 year event that would be created by all upstream lots
and capacity was based on that number in cubic feet per second, or 11.8 cubic feet per second. Reguest for Admission NO.8. Admit that the Town ofAddison offered to install additional
trees on Plaintiffs Property following the grading for and installation ofthe drainage improvement installed at the rear ofthe Milliken Property. Response. 3. Subject to, and without
waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant admits that it offered to replace the two (2) 8 \-l" caliper Soapberry trees located outside of the easement and the three (3) largest
Hackberry trees that were located within the easement, even DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 10 
though they were not eligible for replace due to their location within the easement. Request for Admission No.9. Admit that the Town ofAddison had installed grass sod in the back yard
ofthe Milliken Property following the development ofthe builders' lots. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant denies that it installed
grass sod in the backyard of Plaintiff's Property after the development ofthe Developer Defendants' Lots, but admits that it installed grass sod after the installation of the drainage
system during the development ofthe Developer Defendants' Lots. Request for Admission No. 10. Admit that the Town of Addison installed the drainage improvement at the rear ofthe Milliken
Property in an attempt to ameliorate the drainage coming from Defendants' Lots onto the Milliken Property. Response. 3.,4. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany,
Defendant admits that it installed the drainage improvement at the rear of Plaintiff s Property to improve drainage on Plaintiff's Property. Reguest for Admission No. II. Admit that
the drainage flow from the Defendants' Lots was increased in quantity following the grade elevation ofDefendants' Lots. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant states that it is without sufficient information to admit or deny and, therefore, denies. Request for Admission No. 12. Admit that the drainage flow was increased in
speed following the raising ofthe elevation ofDefendanfs Lots. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant states that it is without sufficient
information to admit or deny and, therefore, denies. DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 11 
Request for Admission No. 13. Admit that but for the development ofDefendants,Lots, the Milliken Property would not have flooded on the occasions referenced in Plaintiffs Original Petition.
Response. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant is i denies. t Interrogatory No.8. IdentifY each and every contributing mctor which You contend
led to I ithe flooding of the Milliken Property during the relevant period. Response. 2.,6. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant I stales that the
following mclors contributed to the flooding ofthe Plaintiffs Property in December I 16, 200I and January, 2002: unusually high volume of rain water falling within a short period of
i ! time, the construction ofthe fence between the Watters' property and Plaintiff s Property, the failure of Plaintiff to maintain the drsinage on the Property, including, but not limited
to, the drains located at the base ofthe wall between the Watters' property and Plaintiffs Property, the failure of Plaintiff to maintain the drainage easement by allowing uncontrolled
growth of vegetation and stock·piling ofjunk prohibiting flow through the easement, the fact that Plaintiffs Property rest at the lowest point on the lot with no drainage protection
and the elevation ofthe Developer Defendants' Lots by the Developer Defendants without following Defendant's instructions. Reguest for Production No. II. Produce any and all documents
related to Your contention referenced above. Response. 2. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request,
if any, that are within its possession, or DEFENDAL'IT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 12 
subject to its control, at MARIs & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Admission No. 14. Admit thatthere
is anatural swale running from the northern boundary of Defendants' Lots to the patio located on the Milliken Property. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant denies. Request for Admission No. 15. Admit that You recommend a berm be constructed on the Milliken Property to ameliorate drainage corning from Defendants' Lots. Response.
3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant states that this question is not entirely clear if Plaintiff intends to ask whether Defendant recommends
the construction of a berm now or whether it was recommended in the past, but Defendant admits that it did recommend the erection of a berm to protect the Plaintiffs Property during
construction of the Developer Defendants' Lots. Request for Admission No. 16. Admit that the Town ofAddison constructed a berm on the Milliken Property. Response. 3. Subject to, and
without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant denies. Request for Admission No. 17. Admit that the Town ofAddison authorized the construction of a berm on the Milliken
Property. Response. 3.,7. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant admits thatDefendant and Plaintiffauthorized the construction ofa berm on the Plaintiffs
Property. DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
PAGE 13 
Request for Admission No. 18. Admit that the Town ofAddison paid for the construction ofa berm on the Milliken Property. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant admits. Request for Admission No. 19. Admit that Defendant Builders paid for the construction of aberm on the Milliken Property, Response. 3.,9. Subjectto, and without
waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany,Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny and, therefore, denies. ReqUest for Production No. 12. Identify and produce any
and all Documents submitted to Your testifying experts for their consideration in rendering an opinion in the Lawsuit Response, 11. SUbject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARIS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway,
Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request fo! Production No. 13. Produce each and every Document submitted to any consulting expert for their review, ifthat
consulting expert has discussed the events related to thc Lawsuit with atestifying expert, or ifthat consultingexpert's opinion is relied upon by any testifying expert. Response. Subject
to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control,
at MARIS & LANIER, P,C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAlNTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF lNTERROGATORIES,'REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 14 
Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Production No. 14. Produce any and all Documents which were eitherreviewed i by, or under the control of Michael Murphy of the Town
of Addison, related to the drainage i characleristics ofDefendants' Lots and/or the Milliken Property botb prior to the development of Defendant's Lots, and after development ofthose
lots. I Response. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant II hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession,
or I I subject to its control, at MARIs & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, i Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlainliff. i IntermgatoIY No.9. If You contend
that there is currently no lot-Io-Iot drainage between IDefendants' Lots and the Milliken Property. explain each and every fact on which you rely to reach such conclusion. Response.
2.,7. Subject to, andwithoutwaiving, theforegoing objections, ifany, Defendant states that there is still, technically, lot-Io-Iot drainage, but thaI this lot-Io-to drainage is to the
eastern and western boundaries of Plaintiffs Property as drainage is designed to flow and not from the, center of the Developer Defendants' Lots directly to the center of Plaintiffs
Property, as is contended in this lawsuit. Defendant knows this because, on several occasions during heavy storms, Defendants' chiefengineer, Michael E. Murpby,P.E., personally observed that all water at the center of Plaintiff s Property, wbich then flows naturally to directly towards Plaintiff s house and POQ1, was as a result of rainwater
landing directly on Plaintiffs Property or coming from Plaintiffs roof. Regyest for Production No. 15. Produce any and all Documents related to Your contention DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUcnON OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 15 
referred to above. Response. 2. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within
its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Interrogatory No.1O. If
You contend that the lot to lot drainage between Defendants' Lots and the Milliken Property was notincreased during the reievantpcriod, explain each and every factor which you rely to
reach such conclusion. Response. 2., 3. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant states that it is not clear what Plaintiff is asking in this interrogatory
because it seeras to ignore the fact that adrainage system was installed during the relevant period. So while lot-to-Iot drainage may have increased on the two (2) occasions during which
there were unusually heavy rainstorms, it has not increased after the installation ofthe drainage system. Defendant states that its chiefengineer, Michael E. Murphy,P.E., has personally
observed the performance ofthe drainage system during heavy rainstorms and that rainwater has neither overflowed from the wall separating the DeveloperDefendants' Lots and PlaintiirsPropertynorhas
it bypassed the drainage inlet located on the Developer Defendants' Lots. Request for Production No. 16. Produce any and all Documents related to Your contention referred to above. Response.
2. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S F1RST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 16 
subject to its control, at MARIS &LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for ProductionNo. 17. Identify all
Documents related to the acquisition by Builder Defendants ofthe Defendants' Lots, including considerationpaid, date ofacquisition, development I plans, deeds of trust, mortgage notes,
etc. t Response. 9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession,
or I I subject to its control, at MARIS &LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, I Texas 75231 upon the request of Plaintiff. t Reguestfor Production No. 18. Produce
the plans, including engineeringplans, construction plans, builders' drawings, or other submissions which Defendant Builders submitted to Defendant Town of Addison for the issuance of
building permits on Defendants' Lots. Response. 9. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if
any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARIS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request
for Admission No. 20. Admit that Town ofAddison, in corroboration with Builder Defendants entered upon the Milliken Property, and destroyed trees, shrubbery, and ground cover, and altered
the terrain ofthe parcel. Response. 4.,7. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant denies. DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGEl7 
I: 1! " !i ii ;1 "<I uRequest for Admission No, 21. Admit that the Defendant Town of Addison authorized !J !I development ofDefendant Builders Lots in the manner in which they are currently
developed, ,Iil 'I Response, 3, Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant IiII 11 denies, II " i! , "Request for Production No, 19, Produce any and
all drainage plans created by the Town of u U,I Addison reflecting drainage patterns or alterations thereto on Defendant Builders Lots or the il Ii !I "Milliken Property, III; Response,
Subject to, and \vithout waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant II hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or Ii.'n
" I;subject to its control, at MARls & LANIER, P,C" 10440 N, Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, ,I :I 11 Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff, I i ; Request fur Admission No,
22, Admit that PlaintifIPat Milliken lost personal property as a result ofthe flooding incidents referred to in Plaintiff's Original Petition. Response. 6.,9. Subjectto, and without
waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny and, therefore, denies, Request for Admission No. 23, Admit that Plaintiff Pat
Milliken's home located on the Milliken Property, has been damaged by flooding during the relevant period. Response, 6. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany,
Defendant denies. Request for Admission No. 24. Admit that officials and employees ofthe Town ofAddison were called to the Milliken Property on several different occasions as a result
of flooding of the DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS PAGElS 
Milliken Property. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections; if any, Defendant admits that it was called to the Plaintiff's Property by Plaintiffon or about
December 17,2001 and on or about January 30, 2002. Request for Admission No. 25. Admit that officials and/or employees of the Town of Addison were called to the MillikenProperty as aresult
offlooding ofthe Milliken home during the relevant period. Response. 3., 10. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any, Defendant refers Plaintiffto Defendants'
response to Request for Admission No. 24., above. Request for Admission No. 26. Admit that officials ofthe Town ofAddison or employees ofthe Town ofAddison were called to the Milliken
Property because ofthe grade change effected on Defendants' Lots, and the threatened flooding of the Milliken Property. Remonse. 3.,4. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections,
ifany, Defendant denies that it was "called to the Milliken Property," but admits that it visited the site as soon as it became aware that the Developer Defendants' were brining in fill
dirt onto the Developer Defendants' Lots. ReguestforProduction No. 20. Please produce any and all Documents relating to the Town of Addison's defense that it was exercising a governmental
function in seeking to remedy the drainage problem between Defendants' Lots and the Milliken Property. Response. 6. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any,
Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 19 
subject to its control, at MARIS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Production No. 21. Please produce
any correspondence between the Town of Addison and Defendant Builders relating to lot-to-Iot drainage between the Defendants' Lots and the Milliken Property. Response. Subject to, and
without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at
MARIS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request of Plaintiff. Request for Production No. 22. Produce any "red tags" or stop work orders
issued by the Town ofAddison to DefendantBuilders during the construction ofresidences on Defendants' Lots. Response. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, if any,
Defendant hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS & LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway,
Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Interrogatory No. 10. Describe any and all reruedial efforts taken by Defendant Builders to ensure no increase in lot-to-lot
drainage between Defendants' Lots and the Milliken Property. Response. 2.,9. Subjectto, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany,Defendant states that this Interrogatory
is more properly directed to the Developer Defendants, but that it is aware that the Developer Defendants constructed a berm on Plaintiffs Property, removed junk stacked in the five
(5) foot easement on Plaintiffs Property, removed trees from the easement, DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 20 
constructed aretaining wall between the Plaintiffs Property and the DeveloperDefendants' Lots and allowed for a drainage inlet to be constructed on the Developer Defendants' Lots. I
i , Request for Production No. 23. Produce all policies of insurance, or insurance-type i agreements relating to defense ofor payment for damages in the Lawsuit. I Re§Ponse. II. Subject
to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant l 􀁾􀀠hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to
its control, at MARlS &LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request of Plaintiff. Reguest for Production No. 24. Produce all Documents
consisting comnmnication between all the Town of Addison and Plaintiff during the relevant period. Response. 3. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant
hereby produces documents responsive to this Request, if any, that are within its possession, or subject to its control, at MARlS &LANIER, P.C., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450,
Dallas, Texas 75231 upon the request ofPlaintiff. Request for Admission No. 27. Admit that the Town ofAddison is a property owner with regard to rights it has as an easement owner in
the drainage easements on the Milliken Property. Response. 6. Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, ifany, Defendant admits that it was granted two (2) five-foot
easements along the southern and western boundaries ofthe Plaintiffs Property by Plaintiff. DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FlRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE2l 
Respectfully submitted, MARIs & LANIER, P.C. Robert F. Maris ! , > IState Bar No. 12986300 Marigny A. Lanier State Bar No. 11933200 Michael J. McKleroy, Jr. Slate Bar No. 24000095 10440
N. Central Expressway Suite 1450, LB 702 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-706-0920 telephone 214-706-0921 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION QFDQCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 22 
􀁃􀁅􀁒􀁔􀁮􀁮􀁃􀁁􀁔􀁅􀁏􀁆􀁾􀁅􀀠This is to certify that a true, correct and complete copy ofthe foregoing instrument has been served in accordance with Rule 21a ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil
Procedure on the 28th day ofJune, 2004 to: Thomas H. Keen LOOPER REED & MeGRAw 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NO. 7003 1680 0004 2873 5228
Anthony Vitullo ZachMayer FEE, SMITH, SHARP & V1TULLO, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA REGULAR MAIL Robert F. Maris 607.0661di,covery.rsp.
wpd DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORlES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEN')'S AND REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE
23 
YERIF1CATlON STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFOREME, the undemignedNotary PubliC; personally appeared the pe11!onmown to me to be Michael E. Murphy who, upon being duly sworn
under oath, deposed and slated that he is a duly authorized representative of the Town of Addison, that he has reviewed the foregoing interrogatories and that the answers given in response
thereto as within his pe11!Onal knowledge and true and correct. 􀀦􀀿􀁲􀁾􀁾􀀠 Michael E. Murphy, P . SIGNED under oath on the .i ( day ofJune, 2004 befure: ALI'SS4 M DENT Notary PtA:IIc
Slale of Taxa. My Commfuion-", March 􀀳􀁾􀀮􀀠2007 DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECI'IONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCI'ION
OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 24 
HP LaserJet 3200se inventHP lASERJET 3200 JUN-28-2004 2:06PM Fax Call Report Job 56 Date 6/28/2004 Time 2:05:05PM Type Send Identi fi cati on 92147060920 TOWN OF ADDISON PUBLIC WORKS
To: iIr.6 􀀯􀀴􀁴􀁾􀀠Company: A--x: FAX".-2L':f Zac;, P'1';:!,O 0.", If-,zc-ctl No, of Pag••Uncludtng 􀁾􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀀩􀀺􀀭􀀽􀀭Duration Pages Result ]:01 2 OK Mlch••1E. Murphy, P,E. OJroctor
of public Works Office: 9721450-2878 Fax: 9721450-2837 16801 westgrow P.O. Box 9010 AddisOn, TX 75001-9010 f;Jx. /HIt; /I1dr. fo1 f dj W&-#4 􀁾􀀯􀁾􀀠
SE'NT BY: 214 70e 0921 ; JUN·1S·04 9:08AM; PAGE' 2/2 Maris & Lanier 1450 Meadow Park Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Centrsl Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 214.706-0922 214·706·0921 (FAX) AMY
L. WALKER June 15. 2004 VIA FACSIMILE Zech T. Mayer Fee Smith Sharp & Vitullo, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE Mike Murphy Public
Works Department Town of Addison P.O. Box 9010 Addison. Texas 75001 Re: Pat Milliken v. Town of Addison. at al. Cause No. 02-4715·F in the 116th District Court, Dallas County File No.
607-066 Dear Zach and Mike: This will confirm that we have rescheduled the meeting to prepare for Plaintiffs expert's depositions for Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. at our office.
Zack, this will confirm that your expert will also be present at the meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, . Walker ssistant to Robert F. Maris 
214 706 0921 JUN·a·04. 3:46PM; PAGE 1/2SENT BV: Maris & Lanier A Professionnt CUToratton 1450 Meadow PllTk Bldg" LB 702 10440 N. CendJ EXp'essw.y Dallas, Texas 75231 TELECOPIER COVER
SHEl>T PLEASE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE IMMEDIATELY Date: June 8, 2004 To: 􀁚􀁡􀁣􀁨􀁍􀁡􀁾􀁑􀁲􀀠Via Telecopier Number: 972-934-9200 To: 􀁍􀁩􀁫􀁥􀁍􀁵􀁲􀁄􀁨􀁾􀀠Via Tclocopier Number: 972-450-2831
From: Amy L. Walker. Legal Assistant Direct Phone Number : (214) 706-0922 Direct Telecopier Number : (214) 706-0921 Pages: 􀁃􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀀫􀁾􀀠iF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES. PLEASE CALL
Debbie at: 1-214-706-0924 Re; File No. 6Q7-066: Pat Milliken v, Town orAddison Message: Tbis will confirm tbe meeting scheduled for this Thursday at 3:30 p.m. lit our office. _ Original
will foJlow by nuul _x_ Original will NOT lbllow by mail The information contained In Ihi. f•••imile message is attorney privileged and <onfidelltialillformation intonded only for the
us. of Ih. individual or ehlily named above. Ifthe reader of this mcs!lllge i. not Ihe intended recipienl, you .,.., hereby nOllfied th.t. any unauthDrized di ...miqation, distribullon
or cOpyIng of !hi! commuoicationisslriclly prohibited. (fyon ha.e ....hed !hls<ommunication in error, plustlmmedi.lely nollry u. by telephone at lh. numbers Ii,ted. Thank you. 
214 70s 􀀰􀀹􀁾􀀱􀀠i JUN·e·04 3:46PM; PAGE 􀁾􀀯􀁾SENT BV: Maris & Lanier i\ Professional Corporation 1450 Meadow Park 􀁂􀁬􀁤􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠U! 702 10440 N. Central Exprmwuy Vall••, T .... 75231
214-706·0920 letephone 214-706-0921 lac.imile 214·706-0922 direc! di.1 awalk.r@marislanier.com June 8, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE ZachT Mayer Foe Smith Sharp & Vitullo, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower
I ))55 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE MikeMW'phy Public Works Depurtmem Town ofAddison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texus 75001 Re: Pal Milliken v. Town of Addisl)ll,
el al. Cause No. 02-47IS-F in the I 16th District Court, Dallas Coullty File No. 607-066 Dear Zach ami Mike: This will confinn lhut we havc scheduled a moeting al ouc office on Thursday,
June 10, 1004 a13:30 p.m. Znch, this will also follow-up with my voice mail regarding your expert being avuilable ro attend the meeting. Thank you foc your time IlJId attention to this
maner. Sincerely, MARlS & LANll;'R, P. 
Maris & Lanier A Professional Corporation 1450 Meadow Park Bldg.. 1.11702 1(}440 N. Central F.xp'.,"way Dalla,. H ••, 15231 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE IMMEDIATELY
Dale: June 3, 2004 Tu: Riykcy 􀁇􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁮􀀠Via 􀁔􀁤􀁥􀀻􀀻􀁯􀁰􀁩􀁾􀁲􀀠Number: (5121491-2366 To: Ken Dippel Via Teiec(lpier Number: (214)672-2020 To: Mike Murphy Via Tciccopicr Number:
(972)450·2837 From: Amy L. Walker. Legal Assistant Direct Phone Number (214) 706·0922 Direcl Telecopier Number (214) 706-0921 Pages: cover+/j IF YOU DO NOTRBCEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL
Debbie at: 214·706-0920 Re: File No. 607-066: Pat Milliken v. Town of Addison Message: See attached discovery to Defendant from Plaintiff. _ Original will follow by mail _x_ Original
will NOT follow by mail 'rile inrormalion contained in thi, rauimile melil8tigei, Ilttorney pri'Vileged timl 􀁾􀁯􀁮􀁦􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁬􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠information intended only for Ihe use of Ihe indi.idual
or .olicy named abo... Ir Ih. reader or Ihis M"'Uge i, nol the intended reCipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorizetl dis.semination, 􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁩􀁢􀁵􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠0,° copyina:
of tbi.5 coulJIlimicatiun is strictly pro.dlJitcd. Uyo.. haye receh'etJ this. 􀁣􀁯􀀢􀁵􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁮􀁩􀁣􀁾􀁴􀁪􀁯􀁦􀁬􀀠in ecruf, please im mediately notify us by leleplume 81 Ibe numbers lI!ted.
Tllank you. .c60 SOL t'.c611. 30'1d 
1450 M ••dow Park Bldg .. LB 702 10440 N. Central Expres>w.y Dalla•• Texas 75231 214.706.0920Ielephone 2 I 4·706·0921 facsimile 214·706·0922 direct dial awalker@maris]anier.colll June
3, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE Rickey Garen Texas MWlicipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool P.O. Box 149194 Austin, Texas 78754 VIA f'ACSIMILE Ken Dippel Cowles & Thompson 901 Main Street,
Suile 4000 Dallas, TX 75202 VIA FACSIMILE Michael E. Murphy, P.E. Lynn Chandler Town of Addison 1680 I Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001·9010 Re: Pal Milliken v. City of Addison TML
Claim No. 0200085821 File No. 607·066 Dear Gentlemen: Altllched for your file is acopy ofPlail1ti ffPat Milliken's Fina Set oflmcrrogalories, Request for Production of Documents and
Request for 􀁁􀁤􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠to Defendant TOWIl of Addison. The deadline for us to respond is Jllne 25, 2004. To the extent that you hllve informali()n and/or documents (which haven't
been previously providlld 10 us) responsive to 􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁦􀁦􀀧􀁾􀀠requests, please provide same before the deadline above. ---,--'------",-_. 
Maris & Lanier A Pro(e.sional COrpOTllI"," 
Thank you for your time and atlenlion to this matter. Sincerely. MARlS & LANIER, P.e. Enclosure 􀀶􀀱􀀯􀁾􀀠30'l'd 􀀱􀁾􀀶􀀰􀀠90l 􀁾􀀠1<: :Aa lN3S 
CAUSE NO. 02·47[5 PAT MILLIKEN. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § -§§ PALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON § GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON
HOMES, § INC,. JON B. COLEMAN, § Defendant>. § § J16L1l JUDICIAL DISTRlCT PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST Sfi:T OF INTRRR()(;ATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON TO: TOWN OF ADDISON, by and through its attorney of record, Michael J. McKleroy, Jr,. MARlS &, LANIllR, p.e" 1450 Mcadow Park Blvd., LB 702, 10440
N. Central Expressway. Dallas, Texas 75231. Pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff. PAT MILLIKEN, ("Plaintiff') submits thes!! interrogatories 10 the attorney
of record fOI Defendant TOWN OF ADDISON ("Addison"). and requests thaI ALldison answer separately and fuJly ill writing under ()ath each of the I()livwing wrinen interrogalnric$, TIle
allswers must he signed hy lhe person mltldng them, A true copy of Your 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁾􀀠and any 􀁯􀁾􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠to these inlerrogal(lries must be .elved 011 the under.igned
attorney within thirty PO) days after service. DEFINITIONS AND IN!>"TRUCTIONS A. "You,." "Your," or "Defendant" shall mean the named Defendant to Wh(lOl Ihis discovery 􀁩􀁾􀀠addressed,
and as the context requires. tbeir respective agents" 􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁮􀁬􀀢􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁾􀀠and altonlcys and all other Pers(m$ acting 011 her behalf ill a representative capacity, Pli\fNTIPf
PAT M1U.IKGN'S 􀁦􀀧􀁉􀁋􀀬􀁾􀀧􀁦􀀧􀀠SET ',lI' INTERROGATORIES, ReQUEST FOR PRODU('flON ()F non !MENT-5 tW.O..B.£QU.5.S."l'JQR ADMISSIONS Tn DHFFNOANT TOWN OF 􀁁􀁏􀁑􀁊􀁾􀂷􀀠PAG£:: I 61f&
30'q'd 
B. "Plaintiff," "OUf," or "Milliken" means Plaintiff Pat Milliken and, as the context requires, each of her respective employees, agents, representatives and attorneys and all other
Persons acting on her behalf in a representative capacity. C, "Lawsuit" shall mean this proceeding filed as Calise No. 02-4715 in the Il<ilh District Court of Dallas County, Texas. D.
"Settlement Agreement" means any and all Documents which compromise, settle, indeml\ifY, divide or shift responsibility. subrogn\e 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁰􀁜􀁬􀁏􀁾􀁩􀁢􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀬􀀠or in any way aftect
any of the panies to the Lawsuit regarding the payment of damages, 􀁡􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠of liability or responsibility, or an attempt to provide remedial efforts for the damages SCI
forth in Plaint.iff's Original Petition and any amendments thereto. E. "RFD Responses" means Your Responses to Our Request for 􀁄􀁩􀁳􀁣􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁥􀀮􀀠F. "Identify" with respect to any
Person means the individual's name, or, as applicable, the name of the entity. Your RFD Responses sbould include in Your response to Tex..R.eiv.P. 192 aud 194 details of "the name, address
and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, MId a brief statement of each identified person's conllection with the case," G. "Calculate the Dama!!"," with respect
to any £nterrogatory means to provide that information requested ill response to Te)(.R.CivJ'. J94 detailing "the amount and allY method I)j' calculating economic damages." H. "Identify"
with respect to llny Document means to describe the Document with such particularity that a Person who had never seen the Document could adequately frame a Motion to Compel Production
or Request for Production in accordance with Tex.R.Civ.P. 167. I. "Person" shall include individuals, firms, aSSOCiations, partnerships, ventures, companies, corporations and any other
legal entity together with their respecti ve agents, representatives, employees, partners. managers, officers, directors, shareholders and utt<Jmeys. J. "Expert" shall mean anyone or
more Persons whom You have consulted us an expert witness to provide testimony in this Lawsuit. K. "Document" shall mean without limitation, 􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀩􀁲􀁮􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠of evety kind,
source and authorship, both originals aud all non-identical copies in your possession, custody or control, of any electronic commwlications (collectively "e-mails"), contracts, agreements.
papers, book$, 􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁬􀁾􀀬􀀠evaluations, recommendations, conclusions, studies, summaries, manuals, schedules, calendars, diaries, logs, computer printouts, invoices, purchas>.:
orders, writings, letters, memoranda, inter-office communications, drawings. graphs, charts. records, tiles, electronic files, photographs, e1ect.conic, videotape or audio recordings,
and other written information and/or data compilations and tangible things from which information can be obtained and 􀁴􀁲􀁑􀁮􀁾􀁬􀀡􀁬􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀬􀀠ifnecessary, into reasonably usable fornI,
PLAINTIH "AI MII.LIKEN·S r.IRST SlIT OF INTEllROOhroR1ES. 􀁒􀀡􀀻􀁑􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁓􀁔􀀠fl)" PRODUCTION Q!:.D.Q.QJI,I!'NTS AND RgOlIl;ST fOB APMlSSIONS '1'0 1)6FSNDr\NTI.QY/N Of AOl1!SON -rAOlll
:A6 J.N3S6 fit 30Vd 
L. "Computer Based Information." In those instances when requested infonnat;on is stored only on software information storage or retrieval systems, or other data compilations, Defendant
should either produce the raw data as it is maintailled (including, without limitation, in ASCII or hexadecimal format), along with all codes, programs and software for translating it
into usable forlll, or produce the information ill a finished usable torm that includes all necessary glossaries, keys, and indices for interpretation ofthe material in regard to the
Defendant. M. "Document Destruction." All Documents, Computer .Based Infomlillion, and/or olher data compilations that might impact on the subject matter ofthe Lawsuit shall be preserved
and any ongoing process of Document destrtlction andlor computer file deletion involving such Documents shall cease. N, "Milliken Property" means the residence of Pat Milliken located
at 14905 Lake Forest Drive in the Town of Addison. o. "Defendants' Lots" means the two lots developed andlor owned by Defendanls Preston Group Designers and Ruilder$, William Long, Preston
Homes, [nco <Jnd Jon B. ColemAIl. adjacent to the Milliken Property. OBJECTIONS As [0 any Interrogatory or Request fOf Admission or Request for ProdUClion that is requested for which
Defendant has an objection or for which a privilege or other exemption 􀁾􀀮􀁬􀁲􀀠protection from disclosure is asserted, state in your response the specific ground fur which each such
privilege, exemption or protection is claimed in a manner sld1icient to permit the part.y submitting these Interrogatories and the Court to determine Whether the claim, privilege or
exemption is proper, and identify any Document affected by Your objection wi.th sufficient particularity that a Person who has never seen the Document could adequately frame a Requesr
for Production in accordance with Tex.R.Civ,P. 196. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD Unless otherwise specified in this First Set of Interrogatories. the de$ignll.led time period shall be during
the period of time ITom January, 199& through thc date of Yourresponse and any 5uppltmcnt thereto. DUTV TO SUPPI.RMENT You are under 11 duty to supplement Your 􀁡􀁮􀀵􀁾􀁲􀁳􀀠to tbe 􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁲􀁯􀁧􀁡
􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠that are incomplete or incorrect when made. Furthermore, You are ullder a duty to 􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁨􀁬􀁹􀀠amend Your 􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠if You obtain information on the basis
of which You know that an 􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁷􀁥􀁲􀀠either (I) WII;I 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁾􀁣􀁴􀀠or incumpJete when made, or (2) although correct and complete when made, is no longer true and complete and
the circumstances are such that failure to amend the. answer is in substanc.e mislending. PU.IN"IWf l'AT 􀁍􀁉􀁉􀀮􀁉􀀮􀁉􀁾􀁦􀀬􀁎􀀧􀁓􀀠nRH 􀁾􀁾􀁔Of-OOGRROGATORIF-S. REQIlFsr FOR PRODUCTION
OF 􀁄􀁑􀁃􀁕􀁍􀀢􀁎􀁲􀁾􀀮􀁁􀁎􀁑􀀡􀁴􀁾􀁑􀁕􀁅􀁓􀁔􀀠FOR AQMIS,S.IIlHS m IlEF11NIMl'!I,I!l.WliO< ADDi!K)N -PAGll J :Ae J.N3SGf/S 30Vd 
REOUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCJ'ION NO, 1: Plea,,! Ident! tY Hnd producc each and every document You reviewed, or which was submitted to the Town of Addison as part of the apl)rovHl process
for the subdivision of DefendanIS' Lots. This request necessarily includes eaeh and every preliminary pIal, (inal plat. engineering drawings, drainage plans, topographic maps, civil
engineering drawings, application for approval and other Documents submitted to the Town of Addison as part of the 􀁾􀁵􀁨􀁤􀁩􀁶􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠process, RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2:
Please identify and produce each and every Document the Towll of Addison reviewed in making the detennination that Defendant Builders drainage plans were "dequate. RESPQNSE: REOUEST
FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Please identify and produce the plans, hudget, and drainage calculations used to design the storm water drainage facility located at the rear of the Milliken Properly,
and installed by Bowman Construction. RESPQNSE: INTERROGATQRYNO.I: Please Describe each and every example of drainage remediatioll work performed 011 the Milliken Property at the request
ofthe Town ofAddison.RESPONSE; 􀁾􀁌􀁁􀀧􀁎􀁮􀁾􀁆PAT MILLlKI]N'S 􀁆􀁉􀁒􀁾􀁔􀀠HI:!' O"'NTEl1ROGATOR1£.'. 􀁋􀀧􀁑􀁕􀁾􀀮􀀵􀁔􀀠fOlt PRODuc:nnN DHlOCllMllN',S ANn KF'IlIBST 􀁲􀁑􀁴􀁬􀀬􀁎􀀼􀁍􀁊􀁓􀁓􀀧􀁏􀁎􀁾TO flEfm.P1i.tlITOWN
Of AOIlISON-rAC!: 4 􀀶􀁾􀁦􀀹􀀠30'td 
REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce any settlement agreements or Mfers of settlement between, memoranda, correspondence relating to, notes of, or any Documents relevant to the
agTccment between the Town of Addison and Defendant Builders to constmct the drainage facility at the rear or the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: JU:QUEST FOR PRQDUCTlON NQ, 5: Please produce
the contract between the Town of Addison .md Bowman Construction Company to install the drainage facility al the rear of the Milliken Property, RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:
Please produce nil invoices, canceled cheeks, money orders, pmchase requests, and any other indicia of money spent by the Town of Addison on drainage remedial efforts on Ihe Milliken
Property, RESPONSE: BEQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: Admit that Plaiutiff Pat Milliken verbally protested to officials of the Town of Addison, prior to the development of Defendants' Lots
With regard 10 drainage which might be generated Irllm Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE! REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: Admit that Pat Milliken objected to ot:ficials of the Town of Addison about
the grade change being effected 011 Defendants' 􀁌􀁯􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀠compared to the natural grade. RESPONSE: VlAIN1'lFf PAT MILUKIlN'S FIRST Sf,!' Of 􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁅􀁁􀁁􀁏􀁇􀁁􀁔􀁏􀁁􀁉􀁆􀀢􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁾􀁅􀀨􀀩􀁉􀀮􀁉􀀢􀀬􀁾�
�􀀧􀀠fOft PRODUCTION DE 􀁦􀁬􀁏􀁲􀁉􀀱􀁍􀁈􀁎􀁉􀁾􀀮􀀺􀁵􀁭􀀮􀁬􀁜􀀮􀁾􀁑􀁉􀁉􀁇􀁾􀁔􀀠f(ll! 􀁁􀁄􀁍􀁉􀀤􀀤􀁬􀁮􀁎􀁕􀁾􀀧􀀭􀁄􀁅􀁆􀁅􀁎􀁄􀁁􀁎􀁔mIV'J OF AIlJ)lSP.M -PA(,g 5 6!1L 31l'Vd 
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO.3: Admit that Defendant Builders raised the elevation of Defendants' 􀁌􀁯􀁴􀁾􀀠above the natural grade immediately prior to development. RESPONSE; REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION NO.1: Produce any and all Documents showing the grade changes in Det\mdnnts' Lots during the Relevant Time period. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: Please produce all
topographic or drainage area maps showing the are3 contributing t(l drainage onto or from Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE: RF,OUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 4: Admit. that the Town of Addison recognized
that a drainage problem had been caused by the development of Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Admil that the fire dep".rtment of the Town of Addison was dispatched
to help combat the flooding and aflenl1atn of flooding at the Milliken Property 011 at least one 􀁩􀁬􀁣􀁣􀁡􀁸􀁩􀁾􀀾􀁮􀀮􀀠RESPONSE: 1'!.AINT!pr PAT MILLIKEN'S FIRST SET (W INTf.RROGATO=,
REQUESTI'OR "R{)!)UCTION OF OIICII""HNT,< AND IlEQ!lliST flll\.ADMISSIONX TOlJfjEENDANITOWI:l.i>.!' ADDlSON 􀁍􀁇􀁾6 :"e .lN3S􀀶􀁾􀀯􀁥􀀠30"ld 
INTERROGATORY NO.2: Please Identify each and every Person authorized by the Town of Addison to enter [he Milliken Property for the purpose of assessing damage, mitigating damage, evaluating
drainage issues, installing drainage systems, installing grass and foliage, and otherwise relating [<) the flooding or threatened flooding from Defendants' Lots or the aftemlath therefrom.
RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: Admit that after the development ofDefendant5' Lots, the Millik.en Properly wa:; flooded at least once. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7: Admit
that after the development of the Delendants' Lots, the Milliken Properly 1100ded at least twice. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9; Please produce any and all weather reports, almanac
information, newspaper articles, reports, or other meteorological data related to the relevant time period which YOll assert relates in any way to the flooding ofthe Milliken Property.
RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO.3: Please explain the b'fade change which existed from Defendants' Lots to the Milliken Property prior to the year 2000. .RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S
FIRST SET OF 􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁾􀁒􀁒􀁏􀁇􀁉􀁉􀁔􀁏􀁒􀁉􀁅􀁓􀀮􀀠REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 􀁕􀁦􀀮􀁬􀁬􀁑􀁾􀁛􀁊􀁍􀁆􀀮􀁎􀁔􀁾􀀠AND RFJ.)llf!\T FOR 􀁁􀁾􀁍􀀱􀁓􀁓􀁉􀀰􀁎􀁓􀀠TO OHENP.AW:TOWN OF ADDISON PAGE' 􀁾􀁾􀀶􀀰􀀠eOL
􀁶􀁾􀁾􀀠:Ae 􀁾􀁎􀀳􀁓6 U6 30\>'d 
INTERROGATORY NO.4: Please explain the grade change which exists between 􀁄􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁬􀁕􀁬􀁴􀁳􀀧􀀠Lots and Ihe Milliken Properly currently. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO.5: Please Describe
tile drainage issue which arose betwccn Christian Laetner, the 􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁮􀁾􀁲􀀠owner of the pmperty immediately south of Defendant The Preston Group 􀁄􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀠and BLlilders,
Inc.'s lot, and The Preston Gmup Designer and Builder, Inc. RRSPONSR: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, to: Produce all Documents relnting to the drainage issue with Christian Laetner referred
to above. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO.6: Describe !he attributing drainage area served by the drainage improvement installed at the rear of!he Milliken Property. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY
NQ. 7: Describe the capacity of the drainage improvement installed at the rear of Ihe Milliken Property. RESPONSE: PLAIN'rIFF PAT MILLlKml'S FIRST SHT OF IN'TERROOA'('()R1ES.llEQUEST
fOR PRODUCTION Q.E.QQCilMitNT.r,; AM) RF.O! lEST fOR AOMfS$;IONS ill QEfENfJANT "tOWN Of" AprnSON -flAG'.': S GUO, 30Vd 
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8: Admit that the Town of Addison offered to install addilional trees on Plaintiffs 􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁾􀁲􀁬􀁹􀀠following the grueling for and installation of the drainage
improvement installed at the rear of the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: Admit that the Town of Addison had installed grass sod in th,-. back yard of the Milliken
Property following the development of the builders' lots. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that the Town of Addison installed (he drainage improvement al the rear of the
Milliken Property in an attempt to ameliorate the drainage coming from Defendan(s' Lots onl0 the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REOlJEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that the drainage flow
from the Defendants' Lots was 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁄􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠in qualltity followiIlg the grade elevati.on of Defendants' 􀁌􀀨􀀩􀁬􀁾􀀮􀀠RF.SPONSF.: REOllEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit tlmt the
drainage now was increased in speed following the raising of the elevation 01" Defendant's Lots. Lots. RESPONSE: PI.ATNl'IH PAT MILLIKEN'S PIRST S£l' OF rNTERROGATORIK'i, REQVI;:STFOR
PRODUCTION .OF 􀁄􀁏􀁃􀁕􀁾􀁅􀁎􀁔􀀬􀁃􀁩􀀠ANn KHOIIEST fOR 􀁁􀁄􀀮􀁍􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀨􀀩􀁎􀁓􀀠Tel DEFFlNDhNI.T.Q.YIN Of: ADDISON -PAGe IJ 􀁾􀁾􀀶􀀰􀀠SOL 􀁶􀁾􀁾􀀠:A8 lN3S􀀶􀁾􀁮􀁾􀀠30V<i 
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. l3: Admit that but for the development of Defendants' Lots. the Milliken Pmperty wQuld not have fl()()ded (In the occasions referenced in Plainlit1's Original
Petition. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO.8: Identify each and every contributing factor which You contend led to the flooding or the Milliken Pmperty during the relevant period. RESPONSE:
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce any and all documents related to Y(lUr contention referenced above. RESPONSE: REOlJRST FOR ADML<;SION NO. 14: Admit that there is a l1utural swale
running from the northcrn boundnry of !)cfcndants' Lots \() the patio localed on the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that You recommend a benn be constructed
on the Milliken Pmperty to ameliorate drainage coming from Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that the Town of Addison constructed;,\ 􀁢􀁾􀁭􀀩􀀠on the Milliken
Property. RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF PI\T 􀁍􀁉􀁉􀀮􀁌􀁉􀁋􀁅􀁎􀀧􀁾􀀠fiRST SET or 􀁦􀁎􀁔􀁅􀁒􀁒􀁏􀁇􀁇􀁁􀁔􀁏􀁒􀁉􀁆􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠REQUEST Fen PROf)lJcnON OF I)QPJMem.s AND R,EOlJES'f FOR AD.MISSh)NS Ttl
Dt!FJ;NDANi (OWN 􀁏􀁾􀀢􀀠ARI:)ISON f'AOE 1{) :AIl lN3S6./0' 39'1d 1060 90L r '0 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that the TOWll of Addison authorized the construction of a berm on the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that the Town
of Addison paid for the construction of a berm on the Milliken Pwperty. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. I?: Admit that Defendant Builders paid for the construction of a herm on the
Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Identify and produce any and all Documents submitted to Your testifying expcru for th0ir consideration in rem.lcring an opinion
in the Lawsuit. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce each and every Document submitted to any consulting expert for their review, if that con.'l1Jlting expert has discussed
the events related to the Lawsuit with a l.t:st.itYing expel<, lIr ifthat cQnsulting expert's opinion is relied upon by any testifying expert. RESPONSE: PLAiNTIff PAT MII.UK EN·.I FIRST
SET or 􀁬􀁎􀁔􀁾􀁒􀀢􀁬􀁬􀀨􀀩􀁁􀁲􀁯􀁒􀁉􀁅􀁓􀀮􀀠RIlQl1DS'T FOR PJ(OI)UCTION OF D{)CIlMENTS AND I\fQ.V.l1ST fOR AOM1S-5lPNS.I9 DE1'ENDANl' '(OWN Of <\Ilp'I:!<ON -PA(JI' 11 6 􀁾􀀯􀀦􀁩􀀠30Vd

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 14: Produce any and aU DOCliOlents which were either reviewed by, or under the control of Michael Murphy of the Town of Addison, related La the drainage characteristics
of 􀁄􀁾􀁦􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀧􀀠Lots and/or the Milliken Property both prior to the development of Defendant's I 􀀬􀁯􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀠and lifler L1evelopmenl of those lots, RESPONSE: lNnRROGATo.RY
NO.. 9; If You contend that Ihere is currently no lot-Io-lol drainage between Defelldams' LuI; and the Milliken Property, explain each and every fact on which you rely to reach such
c\lnclusion. RESPo.NSE: REQUEST Fo.R PRo.DUCTlo.N NO.. 15: Produce any and nil Documents related to Your contention referred 10 above, RESPo.NSE: INTERRo.GATo.RYNo.. HI: If You contend
that the Jot to lot drainage between Defendants' LOIS and the Milliken Property was not increased during the relevant period, explain each and every factor which y011 rely to reach such
conclusion. RESI'QNSE: REQUEST Fo.R PRQDUCTIQN NO. 16: Produce any and all Docwnents related to Your contention referred to above RESPONSE: PI,A INTlFf PAT 􀁍􀁉􀁌􀁌􀁉􀁋􀁅􀁎􀀧􀁾􀀠FIRST
􀁓􀁾􀁔OF 􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁅􀁒􀁊􀁜􀁏􀁏􀁁􀁔􀀼􀀩􀁒􀁉􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀠RoQUE>!, FOR PRODllC'flON Qf DO('IIMENTS AND REQYEST FOR 􀁁􀁄􀁍􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁑􀁎􀁓1Q DBFENPANTTOWN OP ADPlSaN PA('F 12 􀀶􀁾􀀯􀁶􀁾􀀠30Vd 
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: ldentify all Documents related to the acquisition by Build"r Defendants of the Defendants' Lots, including consideration paid, date of acquisition. development
plans, deeds (If trust, mortgage notes, etc. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce the plans, including engineering plans, construction plans, builde,,' drawings, or other
submissions which Defendant Builders submitted to Defendant TowII of Addiwn for the issuance of building permits on Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that
Town of Addison, in corroboration WiUl Builder Defendants entered upon the Milliken Property. and destroyed trees, shrubbery, and ground cover, and altered the terrain of the parcel.
RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 i Admit tllat the Defendant Town of Addison authorized development of Defendant Builders Lots in the manner in whieb they are currently developed.
RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Ptoduce any and all drainage plans created by the Town of Addison reflecting drainage patterns or alterations thereto on Defendant Builders Lots
or the Milliken Properly, RESPONSE: PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S 􀁆􀁉􀁒􀁾􀁔􀀠􀁾􀁯􀀻􀁔􀀠OF INTSRI\OOi\"ftlRIP'$. !lEQVEST rOI\ PM[)l)C !'ION Qr:J;)O('JIMfNTS ANn REQ1IESTF.Q8 ADMtk'ilqNS
Tq 􀁲􀁭􀁲􀁾􀁰􀀧􀁁􀁭TOWN 0..' ADf)lSON' PAGe I J :,,8 lN3SSUS. 30Vd 
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that Plaintiff Pat Milliken lost personal properly as a result of the flooding incidents referred to in Plaintiffs Original Petition. RESPONSE: REOUEST
FOR ADMISSION NO.l3: Admit that Plaintiff Pat Milliken's home located on the Milliken Property. has been damaged by flooding during the relevant. period. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
NO. 24: Admil tha! omcial$ and employees of the Town of Addison were called to the Milliken Property on several different occasions lIB a 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁬􀀠offlooding of the Milliken Property.
RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit lhat officials andlor employees of 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠Town of Addison were C<111ed to the Milliken Property as II result of flooding of the Milliken
home during the relevant period. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that ollicials of the Town of Addison or employees of the Town of Addison were called to the Milliken Property
because of the grade change effected on Defendants' Lots. and the threatened flooding flooding of the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: PtAIl>JrtFF PAT MIlliKEN'S FIRST SET OF !N'I'ERROQAiORlrnl,
REQUEST FOR 􀁾􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠OF IlOf'I fMENTS AN!! REQUI'.'lT FOR AQMISSIONS m DEfliNQANT lPW OF 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁎-PAGE 14 61/91 3011" 
REQyEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce Ilny and all Documents relating to the Town of Addison's defense that il 􀁷􀀢􀁾􀀠eKercising a governmental function in seeking 10 remedy
the drainage problem between Defendants' LOIs and the Milliken Property. RESPONSE; REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce any correspondence between the Town of 􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁑􀁴􀀱􀀠Rnd
Defendanl Builders relating 10 lot-Io-Iot drainage between the Defendants' LOIS and the Milliken Properly. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce any "red tRSS" or Slop work
orders issued by the Town of Addison to Defelldiltll Builders during the construction of residences on Defendants' Lots. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe any and all remedial
efforts laken by Defendant Builders to enSUle no increase inlot-to-Iol 􀁤􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁥􀀠between Defendants' Lois and the Milliken Property. RESPONSE: REOUEST FOR PROOUCTION NO. 23:
Produce all policies of inSUlance, or insurance-type agreements relnting to 􀁤􀁣􀁬􀁣􀁮􀁾􀁥􀀠"I' or payment ror damages in the Lawsuit. RESPONSE: I'UINTIFF PAT MlLl.lKP,N'S 􀁐􀁉􀁈􀁾􀁔􀀠SET
OF INTERRO(;AfORfES. REQUEST FOR PRODIJC'rION 􀁑􀂣􀀮􀁌􀁘􀁘􀀺􀁖􀁴􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁟􀁉􀁾􀁬􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁬􀁬􀀠􀁒􀁾􀁑􀀡􀁉􀁆􀂷􀁓􀁔􀀠FOR AlJMtSSIONS TO DfFF.NTlANT lnW'HW AD01§Qt! -PA"K 1$ 
REOUES..-"'OR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce illl Documents consisting communication between all the Tuwn or Addisoll and Plaintiff during the relevant period. RESPONSE: RF.OUEST FOR ADMISSION
NO. 27: Admit that the Town of Addison is a property owner with regard to righls it has as an eaSement owner in the drainage eaSements olllhe Milliken Property. RESPONSE: Respectfully
submitted, LOO ER 􀁒􀁾􀁅􀁄,7\(0 , 􀁂􀁙􀀺􀁟􀀭􀂱􀀭􀀫􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀺􀀧􀁏􀀭􀁜􀀭􀀬􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁜􀀧􀀺􀀢􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀾􀀮􀁯􀁟HOMAS H. KEEN State Bar No.: 11101100 ELIZABETH P. ARDANOWSKI State
Bar No.: 00793275 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214.954.4135 Facsimile: 214.953.1332 A'J1'ORNEYS FOR PLAINTlrr PATMILUKF.N PLAIN.,lff· rAT MILLIKEN'S fl.,.,
􀁓􀁾􀁔􀀠or INTI'RRO()ATORIGS, 􀁒􀁅􀁑􀁕􀁉􀁏􀀮􀁾􀁔􀁆􀁴􀁬􀀢􀀠PRODUCTION 9.f D(K;{IMf:NTS AND RE;QlH!ST FOR MlMISSJf)NS TO 􀁴􀁷􀁾􀁲􀀮􀁎􀁮􀁁􀁍􀁉􀁊􀀺􀁯􀁗􀁎􀀠OF ADlllSQti PACiE 16 :Aa lN3S􀁾􀁾􀁇􀁏􀀠90L
􀁲􀁾􀁾G􀁾􀀯􀁥􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀳􀁾􀁜􀀾􀀧􀁤􀀠
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that n true and correct copy of the foregoing 􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁳􀁴􀁮􀁬􀁬􀁮􀁾􀀡􀁈􀀠has been forwarded via certified mail, return receipt requested. to
the person listed below em this 26mday of May, 2004 in accordance with the TEXAS RULES Of CIVil. PROCEDURE: Michael 1. McKleroy, Jr. MARlS &. LANIER, p.e. 1450 Meadow Park Blvd., LB
702 10440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 ZachMayer FEE. SMITH, SHAllI' &. VITULLO, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 S;\TllX,\(;llenL\\I\ItJIIlkr:11
. PAt\Dlscoycry\llllettogs, K,.'t', xFA to Town ofAddisoll.do(; VlAINTIFF PAT MITJ.IKI;J'J·' ,!I\ST SET OF fNTeRRIXlATOlUE!'. 􀁫􀁐􀀮􀁑􀁬􀀩􀁾􀀮􀀮􀁳􀁔􀀠fOR PROOIJ(;TlON OF nfJf'!IMljNTS
AND 􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁑􀁕􀁦􀀵􀁓􀁔􀀠􀁾􀁑􀁋􀀠􀁁􀁄􀁍􀁉􀁓􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁊􀀮􀁏􀀧􀁎􀁾􀀠TO f)EFSNMNtlQWN Of 􀁁􀁐􀁄􀁉􀁾􀁑􀁈-PA(iE 17 6,HH 3V'ld 
SEI\!T BV: 214 708 0921 MAV·1S·04 10:28AM; PAGE 1,, , Maris & Lanier A 􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁾􀀺􀁯􀀻􀁩􀁑􀁮􀀮􀀱􀀠C{lrpora!i(ln 1450 Meadow pork D1dg" LB 702 10440 N, Central 􀁅􀁸􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁳􀀤􀁷􀁾􀁹􀀠Dallas,
Texas 15231 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER TO ADDRKSSEE IMMIWIA TELY Dale: May 18,2004 To: Mike Mumhy Via Tclecopier Number: 272-450-2837 From: Amy L. Wolker, Lel;!ul Assistant
Direct Phone Number (214) 􀀷􀀰􀀶􀀭􀁕􀁾􀀲􀀲􀀠DiTect Telecopier Number (214) 706-0921 PlIges: Cover + 31IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLJJASI2 CALL Autna at: 1-214-706-0932 Re: Put
Milliken v. Town of Addison File No. 607-066 Message: See attached letter datcd May 18,2004. Original will follow by mail x Original will NOT follow by mail Tbt Inlormatlun torstlincd
in ttd& flllaimnt mt,uligt It Attorney priviltlt:d .nd flJbfidt:nU,' IIlrOfUllrlon inu:lldt.d only for thr 􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀠IIf the individual or flnlity fl.mtd .h,tvl,!. Jr lilt rt.dtr n(tJIJ,
nltaSagt', Dot tall' intended 􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁰􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁬􀀬􀀠you in bereby !lDrilled lba'.ilY tUlUlCtmri'u:U dissemiIllltioo.di3l1rHmtiuR nrl,:ltltyilli! oflhi. COuUftuultUlon II KrJt;lly 11l1ihibittd.
If yf.!U IllIn rnt:ivi:Ll "':$ (uIUIi ltllk.uJonia trf(l(j [lltM'W: fmmv.dlllttly notify I.U I1y 􀁬􀁉􀀺􀁬􀀨􀀡􀁰􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁵􀁾􀀠lilille' HUUlbN. Ib.lrd. TlUlik you. . 
r BV: 214 706 0921 MAV-IB-04 10:29AM; PAGE 2 Maris & Lanier A Protessional Corporation 1450 Meadow 􀁐􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁾􀁡􀁔􀁬􀁤􀀢􀀧􀁧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀬TLB=70"'2:-:-10"'4'"'40 N. Cenrrnl Expressway
Dall.., Tcx .. 75231 214·706·0922 214.10(,·0921 (FAX) ownJkcr@mnrhrlnnicr,com May 18, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE Mike Murphy Public Works Department Town of Addison P.O. Box 901() Addison, Texas
7500 I Re: fal Milliken v. City <?t'Addison TMl Claim No, 0200085821 File No. 607·066 Dear Mike: Per my telephone cOllversation with your assistant, Sue Ellcn, I am enclosing the following
documents for your review: 1. Notice ofOral Deposition Duces Tecum ofDavid Knighton; 2. First Amended Notice of OrII) Deposition Duces Tecum ofGary M. Petit, P.R; 3. JW1C ] 1, 2003 letter
from Plaintiffs counsel regarding David Knigbton with his attached report; 4. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Town nr Addison's Motion 10 Exclude or Limit Expert Testimony; and 5. Supplement
to Plaintiffs Response 10 Pefendant Town of Addison's Motion to Exclude or Limit Expert T 􀁾􀁳􀁬􀁩􀁭􀀨􀀩􀁮􀁹􀀻􀀠and 6, PlainliiT Pal Milliken's Responses to Defendant Town of Addison's
Rule 194 Request for Disclosure. Robert would like for you to attend the 􀁤􀁾􀁲􀁯􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠ofKnighton and Petit on June Z3, 2004 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Ht our office. He would
also like for you to review the enclosed dOCum"nls in preparation for SanlC. as well as meet with him prior to the depositions. After yvu have had a cha"ce tv review till! I!ilclv,ed,
please telepllone me at my direct dial, 114·'106·0922 to sclledule same. Robert currently has June 11, 100J completely Opell. 
T BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·1S·04 iO:29AMj PAGE 3 Should you have any questions, comments .• or concerns. please do not hesitate to cull. Sincerely, MARIS & LANIER, p.e. ssisrant to Marigny
A. Lanier Enclosure alker 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921 MAY-18-04 IO:29AM; PAGE 4 CAUSE NO. 02.4715-F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRler TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON
§ GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS. § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON nOMES, § INC. and JON B. COLEMAN, § § Defi:ndanls. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 􀁆􀁉􀁒􀁓􀁔􀁾􀁁􀁍􀁅􀁎􀁄􀁅􀁄􀀠NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION
DUCES TECUM OF GARY M. PETIT, P.E. To; Plaintiff. Pat MilJjken, by and through her attorney of record, Thomas H. 􀁋􀁾􀁾􀁮􀀬􀀠Looper Reed &. McGraw, 1601 Elm Street, 􀁓􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠4100,
Dallas, Texas 75201. To: Defendants The Preston Group Designers and Builders, William Long. Preston Homes, Inc., and Jon 1:1. Coleman, by and through their attorney of rec()rd, Zach
Maycr, fee, Smith. Sharp &. Vitullo, LLP, One OalJ.::ria Tower. 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75240. Please take llOtice that Defendant Town of Addison ("Defendant") will
take the orul dopositionofGary M. Petit, P.E., at Mllris & Lanier, p.e., J0440N. Central ElIpressway.Suite Suite 1450, Dalllls, Texas 75231 on June 23, 2004 􀁢􀁾􀁧􀁩􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠at 10:00
a.m. and continuing thereaner from day to day until the deposition 􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁮􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀠Please be advised tllat Mike Murphy may be present at the deposition. Please take further
nOlice that deponent shall produce at the commencement ofthe laking of tbe deposition. the 􀁤􀁏􀁃􀁕􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁓􀀠listed on J3xhibit "A" attached hereto. FIRST AMENDED NO'neE O},Ol!,AL
DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF GARY M. PETIT, P. E. PAGEl 
SENT BY: 􀁾􀀱􀀴􀀠706 􀀰􀀹􀁾􀀱􀀠MAV-18-04 􀀱􀀰􀀺􀁾􀀹􀁁􀁕􀀻􀀠PAGE 5 Respectfully submitted. MARlS &. LANIER, P.C. Robert F. Maris State Bar No. 12986300 Marigny A. Lanier Stale Bar No.
11933200 Michael J. McKleroy, Jr. Slate Bar No. 24000095 10440 N. Central Expressway Suite 1450, LB 702 Dl1l1us, Texas 75231 214-706-0920 telephone 214·706·0921 fuc:,imile ATTORNEYS
FOR DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certily that a true, correct and complete copy ofthe foregoing instrument 􀁨􀁡􀁾􀀠been served in accordance with Rule
21a of the Texils Rul.s ofCi"i! Procedure on May 17,2004 to: Thomas H. Keen Looper Reed &. McGruw 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 VIA FACSIMILE Anthony Vitullo ZachMayer
Fee, Smith, Shatp &. Vitullo, LLP One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE Robert F. Maris FIRST AMENDED NOTICE m'ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
OF GARY M. PETIT.I'.!!:. PAGEl 
􀁓􀁅􀁾􀁔􀀠BY: 214 70s 0921 MAY-1S-0d 10:29AMj PAGE 6 RXHIBIT "An ,. Definitions The tenn "document" is defined 10 include any and all manner of wrillen, typed., printed, reproduced,
filmed or recorded material, and all photographs, pictures, plans or other representations ofany kind ofanything pllrtaining. describing, rderring, correlating, directly or indirectly,
in whole or in part, to each requcst, and the term includes, but is not limited to: (u) Papers, books, records, pamphlcts, journals, ledgers, accounts, telexes, statements, memoranda,
reports, invoices, work shee1s, work pilpers, stenographic or hlll1dwrittcn 􀁮􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁣􀁲􀁩􀁰􀁴􀁩􀀨􀀩􀁮􀁾􀀠,),'n()tes, letters correspondence, witness statements (whether
written or recorded), abstracts, checks, reports, surveys, clilcuintion curds, computer tapes or print-outs, diagrams, plans, specifications, pictures, drawings, films, photographs,
graphic representations, dimes, cruendlltS, desk calendars, pocket calendars, lists, logs, studies, publications, advertisements, instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders, messages,
resumes, summaries, agreements, contracts, telegrams. telexes. cables, 􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁩􀁯􀁧􀁾􀀬􀀠audio I.\l.pes, magnetic lupes, visual Iapes, transcriptions oftapcs Or recordings, or
any other writing,. typing, printing, photostats, or other ronns ofcommunications are recorded or reproduced. as well as all notations on the foregoing; (b) Originals IIl1d 1111 other
copies not absolutely identical, such as copies containing II commentary or notation ofany kind that does not appear on the original or any other copy: (c) All drafts and notes (whether
typed. handwritten or otherwise) made or prepared in connection with such documents. whcther used or noli and (d) Any other writing or recIlrding of any kinds. II. Requested Documents
I. Any documents reflecting the opinions \0 be given by Gary M _ Petit at the trial in this cllse. 2. All reports prepared by Gary M. Petit in connection with this case. 3. All documents
reviewed by Of relied upon by Gary M. Petit in reaching his opinions. 4. Any agreements between Plaintiffor Plaintiff's counsel and Gary M. Petit. FIRST Il,MF:NDED NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION
DUCES TECUM OF GARY M.PETl'!', P.E. l'AGf; 3 
SEliT BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·18·04 10:30AM; PAGE 7 CAliSE NO. 02.4715·F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRlCT COURT § Plllintitl; § § v. § § 1 1 6th JUDICIAL PlSTRICT TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON
§ GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, § TNC. and JON B. COLEMAN, § § 􀁄􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁕􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀮􀀠§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF
DAVID KNIGHTON To: Plailltiff, PlIt Milliken, by lind through her attorney of record, Thomas H. Keen. Looper Reed & 􀁍􀁾􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁷􀀬􀀠1601 Elm Street. Suite 4100, 􀁄􀁵􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁾􀀬􀀠Texas
75201. To: Defendants The Preston Group Designt:rs and Builders, William Long. Preston Homes, Inc., and Jon B. Coleman, by and through their attorney of record, Zach Mayer, Fee, Smith,
Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, One Galleria Tower. 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200, Dalllls, Texas 75240. Please take notice that Defendant Town of Addi,,)n ("Defendant") will take 􀁴􀁾􀁥􀀠oral deposition
of l)avid Knighton at Mllris & Lanier, P.C., 10440 N. Ccnlrnl Expressway, Suite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 011 June 23, 2004 beginning at 2:00 p.m. and continuing thereafter from day
10 day untillhe deposition is completed. Plense be advised 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀁴􀀠Mike Murphy and/or .fanice Moore will be present at the deposition. Please take fUJ1her notice that dep\lI1cnt shall
produce at the c()mmenccrncnt of the taking of the deposition, the documents listed on Exhibit "A" IlUJIched hereto. NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION mJCES TECUM 01'" IIAVm KNIGHTON PAGE I

r BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·1S·Oa 10:30AM; PAGE B Respectfully submitted, MARIS & LANIER. P.C. Robert F. Maris Siale Bar No. 12986300 Marigny A. Lanier State Bar No. 11933200 Michael J. McKleroy,
Jr. Slale Bar No. 24000095 I0440 N. Central Expressway Suite 1450, LB 102 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-106-0920 telephone 214-706-0921 facsimile A TIORNBYS FOR DEFENDANT TOWN OF AODlSON CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE This is to 􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁹􀀠that a true, correct and complete copy onhe foregoing instrument has been served in accordance with Rule 21aofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure
on May 17,2004 to: 􀁔􀁨􀀨􀀩􀁭􀁡􀀮􀁾􀀠H. Keen Looper Reed & McGraw 1601 Elm Street.. Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 15201 VIA F ACSIMlL£ Anthony Vitullo ZachMaycr Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo,
LLP One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE 􀁟􀁾􀁆􀀻􀁉􀁦􀁾􀀠Robert F. Maris 􀀮􀁾􀁏􀁔􀁬􀁃􀁅􀀠OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF DAVID KNIGH'I'ON

r BY: 214 70B 0921 MAY·18·04 10:30AM; PAGE 9 EXHIR1T"A" 1. 􀁮􀁥􀁦􀁜􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠The lem' "documenl" is defined to include any and aU manner of written, typed, printed, reproduced,
filmed or recorded material, and all photographs, pictures, plans or other representations (,fany kind ofanytbing pertaining, describing, reterring, correlating, directly or indireclly,
in whole or in part, to eacb request, and the term includes. but is not limited to: (a) Papers, books, records, pamphlets, journals, ledgers, accounts, telexes, statements, memoranda,
reports, invoices, work sheets, work papers, stenographic or hundwrinen notes, transcriptions of notes, letters 􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀬􀀠witness stalements (whether written or
recorded), abstracts, checks, reports, surveys, calculation cards, computer tapes or print-outs, diagrams, plWls, specificutions, pictures, drawings, films, photograph,;, graphic representations,
diaries, calendars, dcsk calendars, pocket calendars, lists, logs, studies, publicatiQns, 􀁡􀁤􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁴􀁩􀁳􀁥􀁭􀁣􀁮􀁬􀁾􀀬􀀠in:;tructions, minutcs, orders, purcbase orders, messages, 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁵􀁭􀁾􀁳􀀬􀀠
swnmaries, agreements, contruCls, telegrams, telexes, cables, rec(lfdings, audio tapes, magnetic tapes, visual tapes, transcriptions oftapes or recordings, or any other writing, typing,
printing, photostats, or other forms of communications are recorded or reproduced, us well as all notations on the foregoing; (b) Originals Wle! all other copies not absolutely identical.
such as copies containing a commentary or nollltion (11· any kind that docs not appear on the original or any other copy; (c) All drafts and notes (whether typed, hnndwritlen Of otherwise)
mude Of prepared ill connection with such documents, whether used or not; and (d) Any other writing or recording (Ifany kinds. [I. Requested Documents I, Any documents reflecting the
opinions to be given by David Knighton at Ihe trial in this case. 2. All reports prepared by David Knighton in connection with this 􀁣􀁾􀁳􀁥􀀬􀀠3. All documents reviewed by or relied
upon by David Knighton in reuching his opinions. 4. Any ugreements belween Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel and David Knighton. NOTICE OF ORA L DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM Of UAVTD KNIGHTON
rAGE 3 
10 SENT BV: 214 70S 0921 ,, ( /Y S PAGE A T T 0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠B A P,ofta.1.Qn.:l CotpQr:tti('ln 41 DO ThW:sgiving Tower 1601 ElmStreet DaIW, T= 752D1Thames K. J<cefI \{ 214.\154.41,5E-M,nll;
tkl!¢fl@lmllnw.cvrn F 214.953.1332 wwwJrml"w.comlune ll, 2003 Michael J. McKJeroy, Jr. VIA FACSlMILE (214) 706-0921 MARIS & LAi'lIBR,l',C, 1450 Meadow Park Blvd., LB 702 10440 N. Central
ExprcsswayDallas, Texas 75231 Jam..􀁾􀀠W. Je!Ulings, III VIA FACSIMILE (214) 954-9541 BEl.LiNGER & DEWOLFE, LLP 10,000 North 􀀮􀁃􀀺􀁾􀁴􀁦􀀼􀁬􀁬􀀮􀀢􀀬􀁸􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁳􀀵􀁷􀁡􀁙􀀬􀀠§\)itc 9QO; ..:,::"."....
, " " ,Dallas Texlis '7Si3J'· ..·' , ", .:. ... ,,,,:. ' .. :' >.: ,!. :.,.<, ;'; s: 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀺􀀠. 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠,,: 􀀨􀁾􀀻􀀠'.-'. . ; , . .' 􀁾􀀠", ,.",' , , ,;" : 'I j:. t!". 􀁾􀀠1.1 .'
.; 􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠t; ;: :t;;;. t • ,'1: :'" j' :"" • 􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀼􀀧􀀭􀀾􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀠,. i .. !...•• : .•. , .·.,.".l .•􀀧􀁉􀀮􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀬•• · ;.;,." .. ' ..., ..... ,.,.. , , 􀁾􀀬􀀨􀁜􀁦􀀯􀀨􀀨􀀩􀁬􀁴􀁹􀀠�
�􀁩􀁬􀀻􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠:,.,...... ; '. ",'::, :'.: ." 􀀮􀂷􀀺􀀬􀁾􀁖􀁉􀁘'FA'CSJi\ULE'(972) 934-9200 Frj('S 11TH 􀀧􀁓􀁈􀁁􀁩􀁰􀀬􀀮􀀦􀀺􀀧􀁙􀁉􀁴􀁜􀀮􀁩􀁩􀁴􀁯􀀡􀀧􀁴􀀬􀁌􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀧􀂷􀀧􀂷􀀺􀀠.• , .".
".., ".1 '''''.'; "" !·t•.􀁾􀀧􀀬􀁯􀀾􀀠"-' : ' .,'. ' •• ' 00.'6 􀁇􀁾􀁮􀁣􀁬􀀺􀁩􀁾􀀺􀁔􀀶􀁷􀀶􀁦􀀧􀀠"', ·;r:,,<;· :,. -).;':.;-.-' ,-' 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁊􀁐􀁾􀁆􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀻􀂷􀂷􀀠'. 􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀠(,:}:;: ,,'
. 13355 Noel 􀁒􀁯􀁾􀁤􀀻􀁓􀁵􀀻􀁩􀁾􀀧􀀱􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀧􀀢􀀠-, ·i,., ",.',,,".; .:1"; Dallas, Texas 75240 '. Re: Pat Milfikell v. 􀁔􀁯􀁾􀀱􀀧􀁉􀀠ofAddISon, et af; 􀁃􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁓􀁾􀀮No. '02-471,5-F in
the 116'h judicial District 􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁴􀁑􀁦􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁾􀀠County. Texas Supplemental 􀁄􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠QfExperts Gentlemlm: In addition of disclosurt! of Gary M. Pettit, P,E.,Robcrt
p, White, and Thomas H. Keen, please be advised that Plaintiff in this'.matter alSo may present the testimony of 􀁃􀀱􀁹􀁾􀁥􀀠Crilm, of Clyde Cl'UjIl Appraisal Consultants. Mr. Crum's
credentials lire ine1uded with 'his appraisal report Vihich has 􀁰􀁲􀁾􀀺􀁜􀀻􀁪􀁯􀁵􀁳􀁬􀁹􀀠been furnished to all parties in 􀁴􀁨􀁩􀁾􀀠IUllfter. Mr. Crum will testifY as td 􀁴􀁨􀁨􀁾􀀠􀁤􀁩􀁭􀁩􀁩􀀻􀀩􀁾􀂷
􀁴􀀮􀁲􀁾􀁮􀀠in vllluC'ofPlaintiff•. prQPcrty following the draillllge.problem, and subsequent 􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀬􀁾􀁦􀁦􀁱􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁢􀀮􀁙􀀮􀀯􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀡􀁉􀁾􀀡􀀤􀁹􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁥􀀠general substance
of Mr" Crum's 􀀿􀁰􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠is 􀁾􀁡􀁴􀀠􀁴􀁾􀁥􀀠􀁾􀁊􀀻􀀹􀀧􀁊􀀧􀁜􀀧􀁾􀂥􀀠􀁾􀁡􀀿􀁾􀀱􀀾􀁥􀀮􀁥􀁬􀁬􀀧􀀠􀁤􀁬􀁭􀁬􀁭􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁡􀀺􀁕􀁉􀀧􀀠lUl 'Ilmount 􀁯􀁦􀀤􀀲􀁓􀀹􀀻􀁒􀁯􀀬􀁯􀁐􀁾􀁩􀀧􀀻􀁩􀁾􀁰􀁊􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁐􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾�
�􀁓􀁾􀁲􀁲􀀡􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁯􀀡􀀬􀁾􀁮􀁉􀁯􀁮􀀠IS more thorollgh1y sct forth In hIS report, Mr. Cru!I1 phys!caIlYVlgt\ed'!lie 􀁳􀁬􀁬􀁥􀀬􀀺􀁡􀁾􀀧􀁨􀁳􀀠flllIllhar wilh 􀁬􀀻􀁏􀁬􀀺􀁮􀁰􀁡􀀡􀀧􀁡􀁢􀀩􀁾􀁳􀁡􀁬􀁣􀀮􀁳􀀬􀀮�
�􀁉􀁉􀁽􀁤􀀠the effect of flooding problems (1) the 􀁳􀁡􀁬􀁾􀀠ofexisting homes. In addition, as 'for my pwn: op{n,ion with 􀁲􀁾􀁧􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠..10. attorney's fees; 1 b<;lieve an 􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁭􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀠for
􀁐􀁬􀁾􀁪􀁮􀁴􀁪􀁦􀁦􀀧􀁳􀀠llllirrrrfly's fcesof $150,000.00 (0 $200,000.00, excluding expert fees and costs, is appropriate, HOU,S_T6'N 􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁌􀁾􀁓􀀠/"t" , 
Ef:JT BV, 214 706 0921 MAV-18-04 10,31AM; PAGE 11 ( June 11,2003 Page 2 Please be advised that Plaintiff's 􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠expert, Gary M_ Pe!!it, P.E., has visited the site since
his original report, to ascertain the as-built, finished conditions of the properties adjacent to Ms_ Milliken, and any opinion he offers will include the observations made from such
inspection, just as, I would imagine, the opinions ofyour 􀁾􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁴􀁳􀀠will. In an abl!Ildance of caution, PlalnHffmay also call David Knighton of Knighton Homes, Inc. to testify with
regard ti) the effect on salability of a house ufter it has been flooded, the possible adverse consequences which may occur in a house which has been flooded, and the future suitability
of the existing Milliken lots for redevelopment. A CQpy of Mr_ Knighton's observations is attached hereto as El(bibil "AU_ Following the Defendant's discJQSlITij of experts, Plaintiff
may wish to call Defendant's experts in its direct case_ Based upon this possibility, J>lainti1'f designates these experts, subject to the right to challenge their qualifications prior
to trial. After the recent sjte inspection, I suggested that we try to schedule a mediation for SOlnetime in mid-July. Hopefully, this scbedule is still acceptable, and we can move toward
finalizing Ii date with the mediator. THKlsll 
SENT BV: 214 706 0921 ; MAV·1B·04 10:31AM; PAGE 12 ...... KNIGHTON HOMES,INC.6623 Wirulrotk ReI. . DnlJaB, TX 75252 31 Jan 03 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921' MAY·IS·Od 10:31AMj PAm: 13 CAUSE NO. W-4iHS ED pAT MILLIKEN, § 04 APR -6 rNiirHE.l:ilSTIUCT COURT OF § Plaintiff. § § vs. ·s, § TOWN OF ADDJSON, TIlE PRESTON §
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, § INC., JON E, COLEMAN, § § Defendants. § 116'" JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDITION'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT EXPERT TESTIMONY COMES NOW, Plaintiff PAT MILliKEN, and files this Response to Defendant Town of Addison's Motion to Exclude or Limit Expert
Testimony, and respectfully shows the Court the following: I. BACKGROUND FACTS l. Defendant's motion was nol timely filed. According to the Agreed Scheduling Order ill this matter, Defendant's
Motion was due no later than Friday, March 12th, Defendant claims that it served II copy of the Motion on the ISIh day of March, 2004, and same was received by Plaintiff on March 17.
2004. Since the Molion was not timely filed, it should not be considered. 2. Defendant has received expert reports, statements, and qualificationS on the referenced experts through the
discovery process. 􀀧􀁄􀁥􀁦􀁥􀁮􀁰􀁾􀁴􀀬..hl;lS" elect,eQ )101 to take any ._-_ .. 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠'''''::-'''''" -.:.,,' . ".;_." 􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀠depositions of Plaintift's experts. Yet,
despite taking no·di:positions. arid making no attempt to 􀁐􀁕􀁉􀁾􀁔􀁉􀁆􀁆􀀧􀀸􀀠RurONS£ TO 􀁄􀁾􀁆􀂣􀁎􀁄􀀢􀀺􀀾􀁔TOWN Of ADDISON'S MOTION TO nell'DE OR L!)1'T EXPERT n;S'fIMONY·. r'lc
I 
SEflT BY: 214 70S 0921 MAY-18-04 􀀱􀀰􀀺􀁾􀀲􀁁􀁍􀀻􀀠PAGE 14 point out any specific disqualification based on the resumes of the eKperts, and further despite finding any fault with their
opinions. Defendant has moved to disqualify them completely. In fact, Defendant does not differentiate between the expcl1s. Defendant simply makes II 􀁢􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁫􀁥􀁬􀀠motion to disqualifY
all of Plaintiff's experts. u. Addison 'l' Specific Objectiolls and PlaintifFs Responses Therltol l Again, without pointing 10 specific fact, Defendant Adlfison makes the blanket statement
that "Plaintiffs experts simply do not possess the 􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁥􀀠expertise, by education or training or specialized knowledge, skill or experience, to testifY about the suhject
matters fOf which they have been designated." However, Plaintiffs experts are not only qualified, but each, with the exception of David Knighton, have been qualified as expel1s in other
proceedings before various courts. 4. Plaintiff requests that it be allowed to recover attorney's fees in the minimwn amount of $3,000.00, logether with any expert fees charged for responding
to this facial challenge without substance, and without foundation against Defendant Town of Addison and its attorneys. If this (Halter were raised during trial, Defendant would no doubt
take the opportunity 10 voir dire 􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁩􀁦􀁦􀀧􀁾􀀠experts on their qualifications and the basis for their opinions. Only after such voir dire would Defendants be allowed to
make a motion to limit or exclude testimony. and certainly only after some testimony was given, wQuld the Cour1 consider such a motion. Without taking any depositions, and without challenging
directly any of the witnesses' qualifications, Defendallt Town of Addison hns attempled to disqualify all of Plaintiffs experts. with the slightem of effort, by the mere drafting of
a pro forma expert challenge motion. While Plaintiff acknowledges the Courl's role as "gate keeper" a simple reference to II few of the cases cited by PLAINTIFF', KE$PONSJ;; 'ro DEFErm"NTToWN
OF .\OOISQ!\t'S MOTlQNTQ EXP.S:Pf; OR LlMIT rXPERTIE!)""TfMoNY -PaRt 1 
SENT BY: 214 708 0921 MAY·1S·04 10:32AMj PAGE 15 ( Defendanl Town of Addison is necessary to reveal the high level of consideration and respect given an expert witness by a court determining
whether to admit the testimony. In none ()f the eases cited by Defendant are the experts excluded simply by a mere objection. Rather, specific references to testimony and backgroulld
were cited by the party attempting 10 limit the testimony. In particultlr, references to DuPonJ de Nemours & Co. v. Robinsoll. 923 S. W.2d 549, 556 (Tex. 1995) and Gammill v. Jack Williams
Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713,718-719 (Tex. 1998) reveal the level. of detail necessary, tl) weigh the admissibility of an expert's op:nion. Defendant Town of Addison. baving done
none oithe work necessary. simply makes a cavalier motion to exclude all experts. While Plaintiff acknowledges its responsibility for sponsoring expert testimony, it recognizes the burden
of acceptable qualifications. reliability of the opinions, foundation of the opinions, the relevanoy, and the probative value, when dealing with professionals, such as Gary M. Pettit,
Professional Engineer, a licensed engineer who specializes in drainage issues, or Clyde Crum, a state certified apprniser with So list three pages long of clients, appraisals, and matters
in litigation i.n which he has testified. or filllllly David Knighton, a professional home builder. and a man with extensive 􀁥􀁸􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠ill selling, trading, and buying homes,
􀁄􀁥􀁦􀁾􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀧􀁳􀀠Motion docs not rise to the level dignity which should be countenanced by the Court. 5. The frivolity of Defendant's Motion is most keenly shown by paragraphs
D. and E. ofils Motion. Defendants' acknowledge that facts relevant to flOOding, damages to Plaintiff's home, and causation ofthe flooding are all in dispute. Gary M. Pettit is adrllinage
engineer, who has been on the site, observed conditions long before Defendants' homes were completed, and has extensive experience in drainage and lot developmen! issues. Clyde Crum,
Crum, a professionnl appraiser has visited Plaintiffs home, examined the damages thereto, looked at the surroWlding rL..Ilfl"IITS REsrONSE "(0 DEFENDANT TOWN OF .UJorso,,,,Js MOTION
TO EXClU1)E QR LlMIT£XP£RT r£STli\IONX ... hleJ 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921 MAV-18-04 10:32AMj PAGE III area Rnd 􀁨􀁡􀁾􀀠provided a thorough appraisal of the los5 in market value of Plaintiff's property. David Knighton, also a custom home
builder, and an individual frequently involved in buying, trading. and selling homes, has been on the Plaintiff's propcrty, examined market fOfces and factors, and, based on his experience,
has rendered an opinion with regard to the effect of the nooding on the salability of Plaintiff's property in the future. All of lhis testimony is dirccdy relevant 10 issues of fllCI
in conflict in cliSe. Addison's contention that these opinions are not relevant is simply beyond belief, and has no support. 6. Likewise, Addison points to no filets which would in any
way indicate that there would be unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay caused by these experts' testimony. Addison contends that the Plaintifl's experts' opinion3 are not reliable, because
they are "based upon flawed reasoning and/()[ methodology and/or for the reason that Plaintiff's experts lack experience and observation in the discipline." Addison does not even identify
the "discipline" it belieVes tbe experts will testify about, and again Addison says nothing about the lengthy experience cited in the credentials for the experts, and in fact raises
no issue about the reasoning of the experts, other to make the blanket statement that their opinions are based on flawed reasoning. Plaintiff submits that Addison knows nothing about
any of these expert witnesses, and their challenge should be ignored and overruled. 7. The final element of Addison's weak challenge is that the Plaintiff's expert testimony lacks adequate
foundation. All of the experts have been to Plaintiffs property. have walked the property, have observed conditions, and have staled their observations, the facts they rely upon, and
their experience in their respective industries. Plaintiff urges that Defendant. Town ofAddison's Motion be denied outright, based upon its lack of effort, based upon the delay, expense
aIld the effort which would be required to hold a PI.AIN'rJFF'S REsrONS£ TO 􀁄􀁅􀁆􀁅􀁎􀁉􀀩􀀾􀁜􀁾􀁔TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTJON TO EXCLUDE QR LIMIT SXPERIT£STIM()NY .. PJllt" 
SENT BV: 214 70B 0921 MAV-18-04.10:32AM; PAGE 17 { separate evidentiary hearing no each of the experts' qualifications. If the Court is inclined to entertain Defendant Town of Addison's
Motion, Plailltiffrequests that the Court set aside a fuJI day for an evidelltiary hearing, so that the factors raised by Defendant's Motion, and the factors required to be considered
by Texas Supreme Court, be given adequate review for the Court to make a decision. Again, Plaintiff requests that it be entitled to recover its attorney's fees and expert witness fees
for responding to such an ill-conceived, and frivolously prepared Motion. Respectfully submitted, LOOP f , \ 􀁂􀁹􀀺􀁟􀂱􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀬􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺__,---,_,-,,____ HOMAS H. KEEN State BarNo.:
11163300 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 􀀷􀀵􀁾􀀹􀀮􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀭____'l Telephone:, 􀂷􀂷􀁾􀀱􀀮􀁩􀀮􀀲􀀵􀀴􀀢􀁩􀀡􀀱􀀮􀁌􀀬􀁊􀀠Facsimile: '-"214.953.1332 ATTORNEYS FOR PLATNTIFF PATMILLlKEN
PLAINTIFf'S R£SPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADRISON'S MOTION TO I\Xf:UlDE OR I I\IIT EXfERTTESTIMONV -. rage S 
r BY: 214 708 0921 MAY·1 8·0'10 :33AM; PAGE 18 ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded via first class
United States mail, postage prepaid, to the person listed below on this Wb day of April, 2004: Michael1. McKleroy, Jr. MARIS & LANIER, P.e. 1450 Meadow Park Blvd., r,B 702 10440 N. Cemral
Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 Zach Mayer FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 James W. Jennings, III BELLINGER & DEWOLfF-,
LLP 10,000 North Central Expressway, Suite 90 . Drubs, Texas 75231 ' THOMAS H. KEEN S:\THK,\Clitmu\Miltiken. 􀁴􀀧􀁩􀀩􀁬􀁜􀁐􀁫􀁡􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁜􀁒􀁣􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁲􀀶􀁾􀁦􀀠10 0'& MOllOT' tv 􀁅􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁉􀁌􀁬􀁤􀁥
􀂷􀁬􀁩􀁲􀁮􀁩􀁴􀀠Iixpcrt TCJlimony.dnc rL;\lNTlff'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 'fOWN Of AJlDISON'S 􀁾􀁏􀁉􀁉􀁏􀁎􀁔􀁏􀀠F,XCltlPf OR LIMIT 􀁾􀁘􀁐􀁅􀁒􀁔􀁉􀁦􀀤􀁔􀁉􀁍􀁑􀀢􀁙􀀢􀀠Pai" 
214 706 0921 MAY -18-0A 10: 33AM; PAGE 19SENT BY: ,.( I CAUSE NO. 02·4715 PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § w. § § TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON § DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, § INC., ION B. COLEMAN, § § Defendants. § 􀀱􀀱􀀶􀁾􀀱􀀠JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT EXPERT TESTIMONY COMES NOW, Plaintiff PAT MILLIKEN, and in addition to her previous 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁥􀀠to Defendant Town of Addison's Motion
to 􀁅􀁸􀁾􀁬􀁵􀁤􀁥􀀠or Limit Expert Testimony, she files the 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁤􀁡􀁶􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠of Gary M. Pettit, P.E., a professional engineer, and Clyde Crum, a state certified . appraiser. 􀁔􀁨􀁾􀀠Affidavits
are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively. 1. Plaintiff would show that, despite Defendant's lack of identification of any issue or qualification lacking from its expert
witnesses, that Plaintiff has provided these additional affidavits to support the the offer of these two experts, previously identified and disclosed to Defendant. 2. Plaintiff would
show that it had not offered any such Affidavi! on behalf of Robert P. White, as Mr. White is deceased, necessitating the prcviously granted Motion for Continuance. Plaintiff will supplement
its designation of experts, once a new expert has been found to take Mr. White's place. surrLEMENTTO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR OMIT EXPERT
TESTIMONX •. PA,e I 
IV: 214 706 0921 MAV·1e·OA 10:33AM; PAGE 20 Respectfully submitted, BY:--t-__􀁾􀁾􀁾__􀁾􀁾􀁾_______ HOMAS H. KEEN State Bar No,: 11163300 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texll.'l
7520 I Telephone: 214.954.4135 Facsimile: 214.953.1332 ATroRNEYS FORPLAlNTlf'f PATMILLlXEN S{IPPLEM£NT TO rLAJNTIFF'S R'RSPONSE TO DI1.FF.N1M.NT TOWN 0' . ADpISON'S MOTION TO tl(C1,IIllE
OR LIMIT EXPQlTTESIIMQN), -rae<l 
lV: 214 708 0921 MAV-j8-0-10:33AM; PAGE 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to. certify that a true and correct copy o.f the foregoing instrument has been 􀁦􀁏􀁾􀁤􀁥􀁤􀀠via fust class
United States mail, postage prepaid, to the person listed below on this :t-dayof April, 2004: . . Michael I. McKleroy, Ir. MARIS & LANlER, P.C. 1450 Meadow Park Blvd., LB 70210440 N.
Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 Zach Mayer FEE, SMITH, SHARP &. VITULLO, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 James W. Jennings, III BELLINGER
&. DEWOl.fll, LLP 10,000 North Central Expressway, Suite 9 0 Dallas, Tcxas 75231 l1!OMAS H. KEEN S;\THK\Cliellu\Mlllik.en. Pat'IPleadincs\B.e.1ponse to D's Mt'ltiM to R:rcludc·Limil
Expert TestimonY·,lUlpplc:mcnt.cSoe SUPPLltMENTTO PLAINTIFf'S RESPo.NSE TO. Dtl'ENllANT To.WN o.F ADDISON'S "'(tr!ON TO. ["Cl.lmE OR LIMIT EXPERT TESTIMo.NV Pagt ) 
214 706 09:1.1 i MAY-1S-04 10:33AMj PAGE 22SENT BY: j , 697'8 P .. 02APR-0T-04 􀀰􀁥􀀻􀀵􀁾􀀠AM He ( CAUSBNO. 02-47lS-F PAT MIUIKEN, § IN TI:IE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § -", § § §
116T11 JUDI CIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF ADDfSON, THE PRESTON § GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS. § WIlLIAM LONG. PRESTON HOMES. § INC., AND JON B. COLEMAN § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF GARY M. PETTIT. P.E. STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority. personally appeared GARY M. PErnT, an individual porsonally known to me,
WllU after being duly sworn, testified upon his oath as follows: I. "My name is Gary M. Peltit, I am President of NlIdonwide Water Resource Services, Inc_ I am over the age oftwenty-one,
and om olhel.Wise competent to make this Affidavit. The facts set fonh below 􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠true and correct nnd are within my personal knowledge. Z. "I am 1\ professional engineer, registered
in Texas and ten other atales. I bave a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Teus Tech Vnivernity. and B Mutor of Science in CivilEnginccring-Water Resources Option, Texas Tech
University. 1974. I have also completed specialized short courses and continuing education in the water 􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀠field. including floodplain hydrology. sedimentology. urban
stomlWater management, dam safety, storm water quality manasement and related technical subjects. A list ormy curriculum vitae is attached herelo. I have ArFIDAYJIQf GAay M;, pmlT $1.1
-1\&161 
214 706 0921 MAY-la-rA 10:34AM; PAGE 23SENT BY: ; 􀀩􀁯􀁮􀁷􀁬􀁤􀁾􀀠􀁗􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁲􀀠a.a 'SVS 97.70 1 697a􀁁􀁐􀁒􀁾􀀰􀀷􀀭􀀰􀀴􀀠􀀰􀁡􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠AM I previously qualified in numerous civil trilll
matters, lIS an expert on drainage. hydrology and storm water issues. All opinions that I give in this matter, or in any oilier as a professional engiliccr, are􀁢􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁾􀁵􀁰􀁯􀁮􀀠my
education, 􀁾􀁸􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀮􀀠training. and upori 􀁰􀁾􀁶􀁣􀁮􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁣􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁤􀀠techniques in the engineering field. The opinions 1 give are true and accurate, and are within
my best professional judgment. 3. I haye provided consulting Bervices to the Plaintiff in this case, Pat Milliken, with regard to the flooding oCher property, as the result of development
on the adjacent two lots tQ the south oCher property. FuRnIl!R. AFf1ANT SA YETIl NAUOHt. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE MB on April L.2004,to certify which witness my hand and seal ofoffice.
􀁭􀁷􀀺􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁢􀁾􀀠 NotafY Public in and or the State o{Texas AffmaylIOf GARy M, ,.miT. Nt ... t.1t 1 
214 706 0921 ; 􀁍􀁁􀁙􀀭􀀱􀁥􀀭􀁾􀀧􀀠10:34AM; PAGE 24 SENT BY: ; 􀁰􀁾􀁡􀀴)i onloJ J do Wo.'l.ar It... SVa 977 10 6979.APR-e7-e4 08:55 AM I (( GARY M. PETTIT, P.E. PRESIDENT NATIONWIDE
WATER RESOURCE SERVICES, INC. EDUCATION B.s" Civil Engineering, TCllas Tech University. 1972 M.S., Civil Enginccring.Water Resources Option, Texas Tech University, 1974 Short Course
on Flood Plain Hydrology. University ofTexlI1 .t Austin, 1919 Short Co"",. on lIyckology and Sedimentology ofSurfllQc Mined Lands. University o(Kentucky. 1919 Workshop on Sediment Pond
Design. Kentucky Center ror Energy Re_rch. LexinBlon. 1979 Southwest Rellion.1 Symposium and Workshop on Urban St'Ormwater M:rnagemcnt. TcltllS A&M University, 1983 Short Course on Siormwaler
Quality ManQgcmmt. Texas A&M University. 1991 Numerous Symposia. Short Cow-ses Bnd Technical Meetings in the Water Resources Field PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REGISTRATION TexllS 1141977
Louisiana #18969 Colorado #17354 ALabama #130B5 Arizona tl32091 MisSissippi #8136 New Mexieo#10787 Indiana #19822 Adi.onsas #5307 Maryland Nl644S Kentucky #12861 PROFESSIONAL AND HONORARY
SOCIEl'lES American Society ofCivil Enllineers Nallonat Society of Professionaillngineers Texas Society ofProfessional Engineers AmeriOlin Council o!Engineering Companies As_latlon of
Slale Dam Safety Offioials Tens Tech University. Civil Engineering Advisory COWlC i1 Tau Beta Pi . EXPERIENCE As President of N.tionwide Waler Resource Services, Inc., Mr. Peltit directs
the activities of a professional consulting firm specializing in water resource. engineering for the public and private sectors. Mr. Pettit bas e diversified background and over 30 yea",
of water resources experience in the academio. f"gulalory; and consulting fields.. Amona his areas of spcc;iali7.ation are water supply lItudies, river basin master planning. water rlghl!l.
hydraulio•• hydrology, dam safety, emergency preparedness planning, computer modeling. waler quality, cnvin:>nmental assessments. de.ill'l of dam> and ck.uilage improvements, and regulatory
support activities on the federal, slale, and locallovela. 
214 706 0921 jMAY-HI·(\· 10:34AMj PAGE 25139􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁔􀀠BY: ; P.1Cl5Sv"APR-87-04 eS!8G AM . '.. Prior to !he establi5hmelll of NatiOllwide Waler Resource Services. Inc.• Mr. Pettit was
Water Resources Manager of !he Dallas Division of Espey, Husllln & Associales, Ina. for rno!'e than eigbt yeaTs, He was responsible for the analysis and design of drainage and flood
pro!eCtion improvements for cities, !heprel'aratioo of watershed management pllll\s. water supply studies, masler planning for river au!horities, environmental assessments. and flood
plain reelamation projecLs, He served as technical advisor to municipal committees and staff with reprd to flood plain management, runoff eOl1trol, and flood h'Z1\.fd mitigation. Mr.
Pettit was also heaVily involved in waler resources engineering for Ibe mining and electric utility industries. He participated in and dirocted a number of baseline hydrologic assessments,
water Ilvailabilily analyses, water quality monitoring programs, and hydraulic design tasks for mining mining and power plant projectl! in several stales. Mr. Pettit was responsible
for the surface waler aspects of power plant siting studies, ratul flaw analyses ror potential surface am.I 􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁗􀀱􀁤􀀠mines, and environmentat impaot analyses fot a \/ariety
of industrial and conuncrcial projects. He partioipated in vmollS federal, state, and local permit suppat1 activities involving stream diversions, flood plain _encroachments, flood protection
levees, dam and spillway rehabilitations, water rights, lUId effluent discharges. Prior to entering Ibe consulting field, Mr. Pettit was employed by the Te>'3& D"Partment of Waler Resource.
(a predecessor agency \0 tho Tell.' Commission on EnvironmenUlI Qualily) for live yeaw. His experience wllb the State water agency encompas.ed Ibe fields of dam safety, water anilability.
water rights administration, computer modeling,' and bydraulic adequacy analy.<es of exisling and pl1lposcd 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀵􀀻􀀠His initial duties wilb the agency dealt wilb implementation
of the state's river basin waler availability model. developing base flow and flood flow 􀁤􀁾􀀱􀁡􀀠at \/arious accounting points witbin Ibc watersheds and compiling water rights data
throughout the Guadalupe, San Antonio, and Colorado River BIIains in Te;o;as_ Mr. Peillt con4ucted hydnJulic adequaey analyses of exiBting and proposed dams throughout Texas in conjw.cliun
with the State's dam safety program. Thelie studies resulted in a nuinbcr of dam and spillway modifications for the ooTrtction of unsafe conditions. He also made numerous on-site inspectionS
ofdams under II.., Slale's dim nfety program and participated ill Pbase I of tbe u.s. Anny Corps ofEngineer.' National Dam Safety Prosram for significant hazard and high hazard dams.
Mr. Pettit conducted water avnilabilily analyses in connc.::tion with applications to appropriate surface water in Texas. The.<!e analyses int:luded hydrologic simulations, reservoir
operaUons and yield studies, flow frequency studies, evaluations ofeffecl$ on existing water rights, and fonnulallon of lowRow restrictions for the prolection of downstn:am water righl.!.
Mr. Pettit testified for Ibe staff in public hearings regarding his findings ruld recommendations concerning water availability a.nd dam safety. While attending graduate school at TeXIIS
Tech University, Mr. Petlit served aa a Teaching kaistan! in the Department of Civil Engineering. teacbing undergraduate coam;cs in sUlties and fluid mechanics lab. He also served as.
Researcb AssiSlllnI far Ibe Texas Tech Water Resources Center, conducting research on wasteWQter reuse. 
SENT BY: ; 214 706 0921 ; 􀁍􀁁􀁙􀂷􀀱􀁡􀂷􀀰􀁾􀀠10:35AM; PAGE 26/38 PAGE" ,f!.4/a9/21l04 14:101 21492(, I CLYDE CRlM 􀁴􀁲􀁾􀁁􀀭.L 􀁾􀀲􀀠􀁾􀁐􀁒􀀬􀀠􀀶􀀬􀁾􀀰􀀴􀀠􀀳􀀻􀁾􀀧􀀠NO.5l!S P.2 CAUSE
NO. Ol-4m-p PAT MILLJKEN, § IN '!'HE DISTRICT COURT . § 􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁾􀀠g § v. f § 116fH JUDI ClAL DISTRICT TOWN OF ADDISON, TIm PRBSTON 􀁾􀀠GROUP DESIGNRas AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM
LONG, PMSTON HOMEl!!, § INC., AND JON B. COLEMAN § Dfhndlllllll. U• DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS BTArn OF TEXAS § COOOv OF 􀀯􀁨􀀬􀀯􀀬􀁣􀀬􀀮􀁳􀁾􀀠I § BEFORE ME. the 􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁥􀀢􀀧􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁥􀁾􀀠alJlhorlty,
personally IIpple.tod CLYDII Q\l)M, an Individufli Pfrsonally .!mown to me, who IIi.'tIIlibebla' duly sworn, testified \IpO.l1 hi! oa.th lIS folloWS: 1, liMy namo is Clyd$ Ctun'l, thll
0WI1l!t of Ol),da Crum Appraisal CQIISultams. I am below 􀁾1l'U!I and 􀁾􀁑􀁭􀁣􀁴and IIl'II within my personal knowled", 2. "r run a p1'Ofeuional appJ:ai.w, CIlrtifi,ed by the TexlL'I
Appraiser License and CilttUigl.!lion BolIM, Cl!IrI:ifi.catlDll No, 'lX.U23786.0. I bve beon Involved In tho n:e1 mati . budnon, lneludina app:r&lsal, b.to'kerqe, inve.mog, bulldlnB.
IUld conel1'UcUonfor theIl8Itforty (40) )'HI:1I. I hllve pmparcd leverlll thousand appraisals. rhave perfonned buildilli lnOPIOtiOn.e. IIIIl I have als" been Involved In the eVllllualian
of Imld.lBnn!, l'SlUlbei. specialty FopNtles. residential, 
----PAGE 27/39214 708 0921SENT BY: i PAGE 03'A4/0B/2eaa 14: 01 214824, '1 I 􀁾􀀠_r .. n "_ 􀁕􀁉􀁣􀀻􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀠􀀮􀀻􀁊􀁾􀁇􀀨􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀧􀁉􀀠( 1'10.566 P.::! qualified as an GXpert In numerous
cow in Teui aa en apptlllsal Wimess. My 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁬􀁯􀀮􀁣􀁡􀁬􀀠qualLfieatioDi are 􀁾hlmo. , , 3. ''I WIllI reqWlsted by the PlaImlfr in tblt matter•.PatSy 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁥􀁮􀀬b:l preparo
an lI.Pllralsa1 􀁯􀁦􀁨􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁲tooatod 8t l'49()'!.ako FOmIatDtive 11'1 both lIS "borer. tlamap" 8tale'IUI of 12·16-0I, antlibl "after 􀁾􀀢$t:& as of4-14-02. • I &a'll pe:raooaJ.\r
'IIIIIIk.11 the property, IlI1d inllpected tho intetior and exterior of the property, I!nd 'Il_ proven appraisal teclmique. 1114 methods, Ihave lendet$d ID1 bellf, prof...lonai, expert
0pwollolllld:Ms. Millikm WIllI 􀁾􀁥􀁤In the amO'\ll!t of$250,000.00, all l1li let furth In tb, apprlbal raport tarldeled Intbi81111\ttm'. PtlP:lma.. An.IAN'I'SA.YRTR NAUGHT. SUBSCRIBED
ANI> SWORN TO BEFORE ME Q,I1 Apd! L. 2004. to oertit1 wbicl! Wi'l1te8' t'Ilf hand an4 seal ofoffice. (SEAL) NoW)' Publil: in IIIld li:n'the Slale ofTlIXlII 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921 ; MAY·18·0' 10;35AMj PAGE 28f38 , .' ,"',. .-/( Thomas H. Keen Texas State Bar No. 11163300 LOOPER, REED & MCGRAW. P,C. 4100 Thanksgiving Tower 1601 Elm Street
􀁄􀁡􀁊􀁬􀁊􀁬􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀠Texas 7520t Tdephone: 214-954-4135 Fax: 214-953-1332 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PAT MlLLIKEN CAUSE NO. 02.47815 PAT MILLIKEN, § iN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff,
§ § VS. i § TOWN OF ADDISON, TIlE § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS PRESTON GROuP DESIGNERS § AND BUILDERS, WILLIAM § LONG, PRESTON HOMES, INC., § JON B. COLEMAN, § § Defendants. § 1161b JUDICIAL
DISTRICT PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S RULE i94 REOVEST toR DISCLOSURE TO: Defendant, by and through in attorney of"rilcord. Marigoy A. Lanier. Esq.,
Maris & Lanier, P .C., 10440 North Central E:sprcssw!lY' Suite 1450, LB 702. Dallas, Texas 7:5231 Pursuant to Rule 194.1 of the Texas Rules <if Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, Pat Milliken
, ' ("Plaintiff'). submits the following Responses to Defendant's Rule) 94 Request for Disclosure. In addition to these responses(and parliculal'ly the witness and expert lists) Plaintifflldopls the responses to Requests for Disclosure filed by the Defendant as now filed'and as they llUIy be later amended. which
are incotporated by reference. rWNTIFF PAT MlLL1KEN'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S RUI.E 194 RBQUEST fOR DISCLOSURE· P"gc 1 S;\1lIX.\Oic::1\\MWac.n, 􀁐􀁡􀀡􀁜􀁄􀁪􀁭􀀺􀀮􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁳􀁰io
RFD.DOC . 􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠I'􀁾􀀺􀀠\ .. 
SENT BV: 214 70S 0921 MAV-1S-0-10:3SAM; PAGE 29/3S ('. (" Respectfully submitted, LOO By: 􀀭􀀺􀂱􀀭􀀭􀀴􀁬􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀻􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁉􀁯􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀁌􀁌􀀽􀀮􀀻􀀺􀀡􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀭􀀭___ masRKeen
State Bar No. 11163300 160I Elin St., Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telepborie: 214·9544135 Facsimile: 214-953-1332 f ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PATMD..LlKEN .CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I hereby
certify that I caused a true and correCt copy ofthe above and foregoing document to be served via certified mail, return receipt requested, to those persons listed below, on tbis 2511\
day ofOctober 2002. Marigny A. Lanier, Esq. Maris & Lanier, P.C. 10440 North Central Expressway Suite 1450, LB 702 Dallas, Texas 75231 James Jennings Bellinger & DeWold, LLP 10,000 North
Central Exp., Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75231 ThomaS PWNTlFf' rA:f MlLL!l;EN'S RESPONSes TO DEfllNDANTTOWN OF J\DD!SON'S RlILE 194 REQUEST POR DlSCLOSW. P'3' 2 S;\'tlfOOlmu\MillikIi\I,
􀁐􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁜􀁄􀁪􀁬􀀢􀁾to RPl),OOC . 
􀁓􀁅􀁾􀁔􀀠8V: 214 70s 0921 􀁍􀁁􀁖􀂷􀁬􀁡􀂷􀁾􀀧􀀠10:aSAM; PAGE aO/aG ( ( RESPONSES 1'0 RULE 194 REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE (a) the correct names of the parties 10 the lawsuit;: RESPONSE:
Plaintiffbelievcs the parties afe'comctlynamed. (b) the name, address, IIIId telephone number ofany lIIld all potential parties; RESPONSE: Plaintiff is unaware ofany potential parnes.
(c) the legal theories and, in general, tlle factual basis of the responding party's claims or defenses; , RESPONSE: Plaintiff believes those are IIdequntely covered in her pleadings
and in the responses to discovery served contemporlllleo1l.s1y. ,. (d) 1he amount ofand any me1hod of calculating I:cbnonllc damages; i.e.; taxes in dispute and/or attorney's fees; ,
RESRONSE: Plaintiff anticipates a totlll darnisge calculation of approximately $750.000. plus attorneys' fees. The damages include approximately $200,000 in real propertylaken and used
temporarily or permanently by Defendants, $275,000 for loss ofmature trees and approximately· $275,000 in in lost personal property, inconvenience, clean up time' and expense, lost rental
and reconstruction costs. This does not include punitive damages and temporary or permanent loss of value ofPlaintiff's structure as a home, (e) the llI\IDe, address, andtelephone number0
f persons having knowledge ofrelevant facts, and a brief statement ofeach identified person's connc:ction in the case; RESPONSE: All individual parties to 1he cast. L Ron Whitehead •
Knows of result of drainage and damage to Plaintiff's ploperty. Admitted Town ofAddison liability. 2. ClIIlllen Moran· KnoW;s of frequent complaints from Plaintiff and Town's offerfo
fix problem, 3. Mike Mwphy • KnOVWl of Town's involvement in approval of development, obserVed flooding and aftermath, and has knowledge ofremedial measures taken by Town. PLAlNTIfF
PAT M1WKEN'S RESPONSES TO DEm<DANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S RillE 194 REQU!!ST fOR lllSCWSllRB· P ... l 􀀵􀁾􀁔􀁈􀁋􀁜􀁲􀁵􀁲􀁬􀁬􀀧􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁊􀀬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁊􀁩􀁬􀀺􀀮􀁥􀁴􀁉􀀮􀁐􀀮􀁴􀀱􀁮􀀡􀁊􀁴􀁬􀁏􀁾􀁰􀀠It'
RFD.DOC . 
SENT BV: 214 70S 0921 􀁍􀁁􀁖􀀭􀁬􀁥􀂷􀁾􀀧􀀠10:3SAM; PAGE 311SS (.' ( 4, Lynn Chandler -KnowS offiequent complaints by Plaintiff, codes, laws and ordinances ofTowa of Addison. 5. Unknown
Town of Addison policemen -Know of Plaintiff's objection to presence of Defendants on PI\lintiff's property. 6. Unknown Town ofAddison firemen -Know offlooding damage and pool drainage.
(f) for any testifying expert: (I) the expert's name, address and telepOOne number; RESPONSE: I. Gary M. Petit, P.E. (See attached curriculum vitae). 2. Robert P. 􀁗􀁢􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠(see attached
resume). 3. Thomas H. 􀁋􀁥􀁥􀁾􀀠'.' (2) the subject matter on which the expert'will testifY; RESPONSE: I. Drainage problem on Plaintiff's property. State law, proper procedures and temedies.
2. Proper home and lot development. Remedial construction costs. 3. Reasonable and'actual attorneys' fees. (3) the general substance ofthe expert's Ijlental impressions and OpiniOllS
and a brief summary ofthe basis for them, or iftbe expert is not retained by. employed by, or otherwise subject the control of the respondillg party, 􀁤􀁯􀁣􀁵􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀠reflecting such
iDformation; RESPONSE: 1. Defendant hom,builders had insufficient dtairJage plans and improperly himdlcd drainage changes caused by development. . 2, Defendant horj:lt::builders did
not follow proper lot development techniques to hand drairuige. Cos! of recons1:r\l!ltion df lower part of Plaintiff's home is probably cost prohibitivej but might be as much as $200,000.
3. Reasonable attorneys' fees based on issues, efforts, time, complexity, experience of attorney and results obtained. J'UlNTlFFPAT MllllKJlN'S RESPONSIl8 TOlJEl'!!NDANTTOWN OF Al:>DISON'SRlILB
IP4lUiQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE·P,iI' 4 5:\l'HK\CIr'nb:iM'illiken, 􀁲􀀮􀀢􀀬􀁜􀁄􀁩􀀧􀁃􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁏􀁬􀁴􀁆􀁄􀀬􀁄􀁏􀁃􀀠. 
􀁓􀁅􀁾􀁔􀀠BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·18·0' 10:36AM; PAGE 32138 ,-. .' (( (A) all docnments, tangible things; reports, models, or dale coropilatiollS that havc been provided to, reviewed by,
or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation ofthe expert's testimony; and RESPONSE: Produced contelilporaneous!y, as well 􀀸􀀮􀁾􀀠site inspection. (B) the expert's current resume
and bibliography; RESPONSE: Attached. (g) any discoverable witness'statements. RESPONSE: None recorded. RecoWlted in dOcuments produced contemporaneously. (h) Any settlement agreements
described in Rule 192.3(g); and RESPONSE: None. (i) Any witness statements described in Rule 192:3(h). RESPONSE: None. PLAlNTll'F 􀁐􀁁􀁲􀁍􀁬􀁵􀀮􀁉􀁋􀁾􀀧􀁳RESPONSES TO DIll'ENDANT TOWN
OF A.l)DI50N'S lun.e 104 REQUEST fOROISCLOS(JRE. P •• , $ S:\TJIK\CIimulMi1bhn. I"At.J.')iJcovcry\J(Cfl' In RfD.DOC ; 
SEN.T BY: .1 214 706 0921 MAY·1S·0· 10:3BAU; PAGE 3313S -', .... (\-." ( GARY M. PETTIT, P.E. PRESIDENT NATIONWIDE WATER RESOURCE SERVICES, INC. EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering, Texas
Teeh University, 1972: M.S., Civil Engineering.Water lUlsources Option, TeJ/as Tecb University, 1914 Short Course On Flood Plain Hydrology, University 􀁯􀁾􀁔􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁳􀀠8tAustin, 1979
Short Course on Hydrology and Sedimentology ofSurface Mined Lands, University of Kentucky, 1979 Workshop 1m Sediment Pond Design, Kentucky Cenut for Energy lUlsearch, Lexington, 1979
Southwest Regional Symposium and Worlcshop on Urban Storrnwater Management, Texao;. A&M University, 1983 Short Course on Stonnwater Quality Mimagement, Texas A&M University, 1991 PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING REGISTRATION Texas #41977 Louisiana #18969 Colorado #17354 Alabama #13085 Arizona 1132097 􀁍􀁩􀁳􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁰􀁰􀁩􀀠118136 New Me;cico #10787 Arkansas #5307 􀀽􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁓􀀠Kentucky
#12861 􀁾􀀻􀀠. . . PROFESSIONAL AND HONORARY SOCIETIES i, American Society ofCivil Engineers 􀁾􀀠National Society of Professional Engineers Texas Society of Professional Engineers American
Council ofEnginecring Companies Association 01 SllIte Dam Safety Officials Arkansas Floodplain Management Association Tau Beta Pi EXPE)llENCE As President of Nationwide Watf)r Resource
Servil;es. Inc., Mr. Pettit directs the activities of i1 professional consulting firm specializing in water reso= engineering for tho public and private sectors. Mr. Pettit has a diversified
background Il/ld 􀁾􀁥􀁲27 yoars of water 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁾􀁳􀀠experience in the academic, regurntory, and consulting fields. Among his _ ofspecialization are water $IIPPIy studies, river basin
master planning, water rights, hydraulics, :hydrolo&y, dam safety, emergency preparedness planning. computer modeling, water quality, environmental assessment., design of dams and drainage
improvements, and regulatory support activities on the 􀁦􀁥􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀠state, and local levels. Prior to the establishment of Nationwide Water 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁾􀁣􀁥􀀠Services, Services, Inc.,
Mr. Pettit was 􀁗􀁡􀁾􀁲Resources 1'00264 
SENT BV: ; 214 706 0921 MAV·19·0' 10:37AM; PAGE 34/38 (" . ( Manager of the Dallas Division of Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. for more than eight years. He was responsible fur the
analysis and design of drainage imd flood protection improvements for citie., the preparation of watershed management plaJ)s, water sU:pply studle!l, master planning fur river 􀁡􀁵􀁕􀁬􀁑􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾􀀢�
�􀀠environmental assessments, And flood plain reclamation projects. He sefVe!l as technical advisor to municipal committees and staffwith regard to flood plain mallagement, runoffcolltrol,
and tlood hazard mitigation. Mr. Pettit was also heavily invoived in, waler resources engineering for the mining and electric utiliI}' 􀁩􀁮􀁤􀀢􀀢􀁴􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀮􀀠He participated in and
dire(:l:ed a nllmber of baseline hydrologic lISSessments, water availability analyses, water quality mo';itoring!programs, and bydraulic design tasks for mining wd power plant projects
ill sever.l .tetes. Mr. Pettit was responsible for the surfl1QC water .speets of power plant siting studies, fatal flaw analyses fori potential surface and underground mines, and environmental
impact .inalyses for a vaticl}' of indllstrial snd commercinl projects. He participated in various federal, stete, and local permit support aciivities involving Slleam diversions, 􀁴􀁬􀁯􀁾􀀠plain
encroaclunents, flood protection levees, dam and sJlillway rehabililBtions, water rights; and effluent discharges. Prior to entering the consulting field, Mr. Pettit wlis employed by
the TelUlS Department of Water Resources (a predecessor agency to the Texll$ Natural Resource Conservation Commission) for five years. His experience with the State water agency encompassed
the fields of dam safety, water avallability, water rights administration, computer imodeling, and hydralllic adequacy analyses of . existing and proposed projects. His initial duties
with the agency dealt with implementation ·of the State's river b.sin water availahility model, developing base flow and flood flow data at various accounting points within the watersheds
and 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁭􀁮􀁾water rights dalll throughout the 􀁇􀁵􀁡􀁤􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁰􀁥􀀬􀀠Sail Antonio, and Colorado Rivet Basios in Texas. Mr.: Pettil condllcted hydraulic adequacy analyses of existing
and proposed dams throUghOllt Texas in conjunction with the Slate's dam sllfety program: These . studies resulted in a number ofdam and spillway moqiflcalions for the correction of unsafe
conditions. He also made numerous on-site Inspections of dams under the State's dam .6,fety program and participated ill Phase I of Ule U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers' National Dam Sitbty
Program for significant hazard and high hll:l'.llfd dams. Mr. Pettit cOnducted water availability analyses in connection with applications to appropriate SlIrface water in' Texas. 􀁔􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀢􀁥􀁡􀁮􀁡�
�􀁹􀁳􀁥􀁳􀀠included hydrologic .simulations, reservoir operatiollli and yield studies, 􀁾􀁯􀁷􀀠frequency studies, evaluations of effects on eocisting water 􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁳􀀬􀀠and formulation
of low-flow rei;trictions for the 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠􀀠of downslteam water rights. Mr. Pettit testified for the staff io public hearings regarding hi. findings and recortlmendationR onncerningwater
availability and dam sllfety. While attending graduate school at TelUlS Tech University, Mr. Pettit served as "a Teachitlg Assistant in tbe 􀁄􀁥􀁰􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴of Civil Engineering, leaching
undergtaduate courses il\ stetics and fluid mechanics lab. He also Served as a Research Assistant for the Texas Tech Water Resources Center, conducting research on WM!.ewater reuse.
·P00265 
SENT BV: 214 706 0921 MAV·IS·O' .IO:37AM; PAGE 35/38 .' ( " ,{ ROBERT P. WHITE 􀁾􀀱􀀷􀀸􀀠l.oIIpIIII Drive b.b.rpwclJ@allbL••m FdIC" Tu.. 7S034 Offi.o-(469)384-4965 FIX (469) 384-8910
CeD (7n) 989-15074 QUALIFICATIONS SllMMARY SIiNlORREALESTATltEXI:CUTI\'II:. l'iton:crMANACEMl!NT. GENEIlALAND FINANt.'IAL MANAGI!MIlN't • I!xtensivc real estall: industry kni.wtedge
with construction, apl'tai.W, and brokerage expertise, . • Higb-<inergy. fOCll'l.ed iDdividuaJ who D;lOVes easily from vision and .!trategy to implementation. problem-solving, Ijnd fu!low-through.
• Higbly 􀁉􀁏􀁏􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁣􀁤􀀠aruI Il<OOmplided 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠managelllCllt professional with tnln:Jl"'llCutial ""'JlCrl=inall :fi!ielll ofOOllSflUCuon opemtiOll!. • Negotiated long-tenn, strategic
paimerships with key vendors that rcsul!l:d in prel\lrentJal 􀁶􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁯􀁲􀀠pricing and IDiOt marketing programs. • Provell ability in planning, i.n\plemenling-, Wld a_seeing IliBh-oollar
construction'projects fiom conceRno certificate of oo:upancy aruI through wmn.nty. nty. : . • Home selected by the Dallas HOllli!'BulIder's' Association as the LuXllty Hom.e oCllle Year-2000
; • 􀁓􀁥􀀱􀁾by National AS5OClation.otHome Builders and Ladie.. Home Journal ma&a:Zine 10 build 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠Ilemoask.tion HQme for 2000 Home Builcior's Convention. • Home seleCled by Neiman-Marcus
lis the 199' Chrlslmas HOlIK. • Selected by Southern Living 􀁾􀁣10 build the Dillard', HoUday HoWie -. 1995. . • Master ofllusiness Administration 􀁤􀁾􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁥-Soulhem Mc;thodist Universily
Cox Schoo! ofBusInw -1993 • + Analytical aruI solution-oricnted; 'customer fooused; lop-1lInk presenter and cotMIlll'licalor. . . l'ROnSSIONi\L EXPERIENCE 2002·Present ROIIER·CP. WHITBCoNsuLl1NOGKoUP
" Frisco, Texas Owner • Organized 􀁬􀁵􀁮􀁾􀀠2002 to capita/ize..lISa coosultanllil owners and builders, on expexjeru:e in real estate indilsUy. • Providing services III OWlleIS In tl\e
eonS!ructlon of high-end residential propesties from OOpcepllO comilleliol!. ' 1999-2001 CUSTOMHoMESGROUl',L.L.C•• Dana;, Tw. 1'.csideJItiCEO ' Organized Custom HOIII£lI GroUp, L.L.C.
in Al\gus! 1999 and pun;hased the . construction assets ofRobClt P.!white Castom Homes, Inc. • lncrwed the 􀁣􀁡􀁰􀁩􀁲􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁯􀁮of (l:ustom HolUes Group, L,L.C. by $1.3 Million through
a private placement . • Orf?,lU1i2:ed a Board ofDirectcrs ,\0 guide the strategic planning for !he company, • Positioned !he comp,rnylO 􀁉􀁮􀁾construction volODlc by 1000/0. . • Led
In tbe design and installation of an office network Ilia! integrared the accounting, estimating, and scheduliog. . . P00260 
􀁾􀀡􀀽􀁎􀁔􀀠BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·19·r' 10:SBAM; PAGE 37138 , ,.. 􀀬􀁾􀀠\ L968·1977 THE ltO»BJ>.T WHrrn CoMPANlllS • 􀁍􀁩􀁾􀁩􀀮FL, Pl'C$idenliCEO • Due to the exUllorc!i11lllY IJce time
aVlliJable while employed as a pilot iOf Ea5tern Airlines founlkd The :I<obert While Companies, Miami, FL. • The Robert White Companies i>'as the builder and developer llI'large singlefamily
custom IIomeil, multi-f!lmily 􀁾􀁳and light COlllJlll:rcial projects in South Dade Counl}! Florida.' • Led the Company from annual 􀁾􀁵􀁥llI' $4001:: to annual revenue of SS Million
and 115 employee! in fom }'Illlll1. • Developed sevel'lll trncts 􀁯􀁦􀁨􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠that included mote than 190 hame sites. • 􀁒􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁺􀁥􀁤􀀠in 1914 as the folirth largest developet'ibulldcr
in South Dnde 􀁃􀁭􀁭􀁾􀀠. • During hurricane.Al>d><;w in 1991 all ofthe.. projects were at, or DCar, the "eye of the hurriOlUlc' and 􀁾􀁥􀁤no known stmClUJ1ll damage and relatively insignificant
􀁯􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁦􀁾􀀮􀀠1965-1991 EAsT£RNAl1U.lNES, INc.• Miami, FL.: New York. NY, Atlanta, GA. Flight Engineer, Pilot, Clptaln,Fligh! Mana&er, and Asst. CblefPilol • To achieve a life gotl.
began' talting flying lessons in JanuarY 1964 ad received Commercial and MuJ:rl·engine License with Instrument Rating in Spring 􀁾􀀹􀀶􀀵􀀮􀀠, • HiNd by Eastern AU-lines in }!'ovember
1965 and assigned to B·717 Flight EQjjinee.r tnIning. : • Completed all tI'lIlning Ihroulihollt career with lIVer 15% of the training instruelM's rcmadts nnging IMm "e:xeelleut" 10 "ou!St3lldlog".
• PrO&CCssed (rOlu FI.lghl Engini:er 10 Finlt Officer (Co-Pilot) to Captain ali quiCkly as the seniority S)'S1em !aUowad. • Led the Eastern Airlines unit Of the Airlines Pilot'S Association
to develop alternative methods dllJing intense labor ilcgotialioDS in 1985·86 that ' resulted in lbe sale of Eastern Airlines 10 Texas Air Corp. " These c1fons rcsuItcid in the rntillcation
of the ooIy labor . agreement \hat Frank 1.0=0, Texas Air, ever signed: and hooored. ' " Maoy believe Iheso c1forts resulted in coru:ndiDg the corpora1e life life ofElIStem by five years.
i. • Led an ad hoc group of Eastefn Pilots ill a nine·month lobbyi.!g effuIt in 1981-$8 before tho United 􀁓􀁾􀁳Congrcss opposing the militant c1fons of ""ion ollicillls to clO$' down
Eastern Airlines. • Teslilied on behalf of iIu::'.l!lister1l Pilots before tbc U.S. House Transportation suboommit1Joe; and. before the V.S. Senate Avialloll Subcommit1Jle. • 􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁭􀁯􀁴􀁥􀁤􀁴􀁯􀁍􀁡
􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁆􀁬􀁹􀁭􀁧􀁯􀁉􀁬􀁂􀂷􀀷􀀲􀀷􀀻􀁂􀁾􀀷􀀵􀀷􀀻􀀠and A-Joo. " Pl'OYided tri1iDing andflyillg technique review for line pilots. • Promote4 to Assistant Chief Pilot for the Northern
Region -1988 -at that time the large,lt pilot dolllicik Of any airline in the nation. o Developed and IIlB1IlIJed pro.(!WllS for safety and standards for piloli ofth. Northern Itegion
(New Yolk, Boston. IUld Washington D.C.) . • :Early retirementfromBastern Airlinese!fe<:uveIan1W')l 11,1991. • Eostem Airlines ceased all operations and beg:m finalli'lwdation at 5:30
PM JanUAly 18. 1991. . P(10262 
SE'NT BY: 214 708 0921 PAGE 3S138 '􀁾􀁩􀀠r"-'..,------------..( (' , \ ' , l EDUCATION Bachelor ofAN in HlstOl)' and Pre-Law, 1962 , Baylor University, W8f:.O, Texas ' Masters of Business
Administration, 1993 , ' Soo/hem Methodist University Cox SchOOl ofBUSiness, Pallas, Tex.a.s LICENSUIUe FAA Airline 'l'rlmsport Pilot Licoase -Current , AUpI""c SiDgIclllld Multi-engine
􀁾with Commereial Privileges RatingJs onB-7S7, B-71;7, 8-727, A-300, andL·IOll 􀁾Rt:aI Estate Brokers Lie<:lJst, 1991-Cum:nt Telw SUllo Certified General 􀁒􀁾!state Appraiser, 1991 -1996
Florida Goneta1 CuntracfOrLiocl"c, 1970·1979 PROFESSIONAL AFFLJATIONS Member, Qreal ... Dallas Board of1tealtors Member, Nalionll! Associalion orHome Builder. 􀁾􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀬Ila1las Home
BWlder's AsSOCiauOll ' Member, Texas Home Buildor'& Association Past Pin;ctor, Natialllll Aa!oci.tion ofRom. Builder. PastDittaor, North i:>a1JaslCoIlin CoOllty Home BlIilder'. Associ.tion
Past M<:mbcr, Appraisal Institute (MAl) REFERENCES • From our jlrsl meellng, WI had raral con/idence in Bob and Doug's abilili.', to/en" and mastlmporlantly, Iheir /nJ$tworfhir!ess,
the home they built for us is beyond elJr own great expectations", their attention 10 dO/fill 19 amazing, Th. people they surround themselves with or, profo.ulanolln thtlr crl1ft: and
have our resptctjar doing a yeal j"h, Li8ll and Stott S.m. ' , • Jt:. important to fInd t1 'bUilder IIlat you clm Work with tlr",ughout all aSpects' ofthe bUilding process, W. """" able
t" 'cu.tomize foahlres and finishes ofOur hame tho/were Important tt> u., Bob Whit. 􀁣􀁯􀀢􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁵􀁥􀁤􀀠to stand behfnd hla """Ii; pY.fvlding any ne.ded support and resou/'CIIS, even
18 mOlllhs after closing 011 ovrIrom<, LfIm A.. BacelMtlnu 􀁊􀁵􀁾􀀠• Your choices of3UbCfJnlraclors w,tie Ih. best in the bwtn.SI; your conCllrn about details all" finish was ot:yond
the call-o/'<luty; and most imporfantly, :your long-term Inlor••t aboUf what was behind the _lis, al/reflected high inl'grll)! atfd good taste, YOII did what you said YO" were gofng
fo do, and ott witho"t /an/Qf't;. lIolI and Joe Mallow • TOll can't lest the irrfi-aslructrml 0/'(1 home l1li111 you have moved In. Our hom. lliceeiled o.rexpecfallons in all the cal'gall;s
where WIJJUM had 10 ta"" hi .• woltlfoY it, Above all .f... you shoull! b. obI. to t""tyoiJr 􀁢􀀯􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁤􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠W. trusf Bob White 10 the polntwh.,ew. col/him afriend. Bob and Beraaf.1t
n.Bbod •• Additional references on request, r00263 
MAY-19-2004 05:07 COWLES &THOMPSON 2146722020 P.01/02 COWLES &THOMPSON GATTORNEYS: .AND COUNSELORS FACSIMILE COVER PAGE Time: ______Date: May 19, 2004 Total Number of Pages (including
this sheet): ..-L Normal/Rush: Normal Client/Matter #: 3195127512 TO; (1) Mike Murphy (2) Steve Chutchlan FAX: 972.450.2837 FAX: 972.450.2837 PHONE: PHONE: FROM: Angela K. Washington
Direct Dial #: (214) 672-2144 MESSAGE: RE: Parcel 8 (Outback Sleakhousel. Addison Widening of Road Project IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION. PLEASE CALL Yolanda Rodriguez
at (214) 672-2629 Thank you. IMPORTANnCONFIDENTIAL: This message is intended only jor the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message contains information
from the law firm of Cowles & Thompson Which may be privileged, confidential. and exempt from disclosure under applicabla law. II the reader of this message is not the intended recipient
or the employee, or agent responsible for delivering the message to the Intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution. or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. please notify us immediately at our telephone number (214) 672·2000. We will be happy to arrange for the return
of this message to us, via the United StaleG Postal Service, at no cost to you. 'J01 􀁎􀁾􀁉􀁈􀀠5T"£[T lun, 400(1 DAl.L4S,.1'£XAS H202.l19,) o ALL A S T Y L E R TEl. 21<1.612.2000 FAX
U4,UZ.ZOU WWW.CiOWL!:STHOMPSOJri.COII 
MAY-19-2004 05'07 COWLES & THOMPSON . 2146722020( JWLES &THOMPSON A ProfesSional Corporation ATTORNEY$ AND COUNSELORS ANGElA K. WASH!;;GTON 214.'13:.1'144 AWA.StnNGTOHOCOWLM1HOM,.SDN,eOM
May 19,2004 VIA FA.CSIMILE (972) 450-7065 Ms. Carolyn Burgette AccolUlting Manager Town ofAddison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001·9010 RE: Parcel 8 (Olltback Steakbollse) Addison Widening
of Road Project Dear Carolyn and SIeve: In cOlUlection with Parcel 8, Addison Extension of Road Project, enclosed are the following documents: 1. A copy of the executed Purchaser's Settlement
Statement; and 2. A copy ofthe executed Easement Agreement. ReplIblic Title has scbeduled Closing tor tbis Friday, May 21, Z004. Once the money bas been forwarded to Republic Title,
they will forward the purchase price to the SeHer. Wiring instructions are enclosed. If we cannot meet the closing date, please let me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your
assistance. 􀁾It. rtfj---Angela K. Washington AKW/Y,jr Attachments c wlo Enclosures: Mr. Mike Murphy "ia Facsimile (972) 451M837 w/o Enclosures Mr. Steve Cbutchian "ia Facsimile (972)
450.2837 Mr. Ken C. Dippel. w/firrn qol MAIN STIi:£ET SUITE 400:0 DAi.LAS, TEXAS 75202.31'.13 D ALl. A. S T Y L E R trio. 11.!l.h7l:.200n F,6)( H4,6.72.202(J WWW.COWl£:5T80MPSON,('OM;
TOTAL P.02 
SENT !'.Y: 214 706 0921 MAY-12·04 1.2:01PM; PAGE 1113 Maris & Lanier A Professional COrpOTlllion 􀁩􀀴􀀵􀁩􀁩􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁵􀀨􀀾􀁷􀀠Park Bldg., Lfi'ioz'-:JO:C4:-:47."07N:-.􀀭􀀻􀀭􀀻􀁣􀀧􀀭􀀮􀁮􀀭􀀺􀁉􀁲􀀭􀁡􀀱􀀺􀀻
􀁅􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀮􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀬􀁳􀁗􀁑􀁙􀀠Dallas, Texa. 7523 J , '; TEUCOPIER:COVER SHEET ., PLEASE DELIVER TO Aj)DRESSEE IMMEDIATELY Dale: May Il, 2004 To: Ken Dippel Via. Tolccopier N¥mbor: 214·672.2020
To: Rickey Oaren Via Telceopicr 􀁎􀁾􀁭􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀺􀀠512-491.2366 To: Mike MU[Ilhy Via Telecopier 􀁎􀁾􀁭􀁢􀁣􀁲􀀻􀀠972-450·2837 From; Amy L. Walker, Legal Assistant Direct Phone Number; (214)
706.092i Direct Telecopier Number (214) 7Q6-0921 Pages: Cover + 13 . IF YOI! DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PI;;tASE CALL Debbie at: 1·214·706-0924 Re: Pat Milliken v. City ofAddison File
No. 607·066 Message: See attached depo 􀁮􀁯􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁦􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁦􀁲􀁳􀀠experts. __ Original will follow by mail _x_ 􀁏􀁔􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠will NOT follow by mail "'11(', inff)TmatillA
clm'lIilll:d ill Hils fllulmlle (Tt(uag( Is: 􀁉􀁬􀁴􀁴􀁶􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀠,4hil.,td Ioftd l.!oaJldt'fll;1t1 i'lforml\slon h.ffndt"u nnly rur Ihf ltlf of Inf l»dlvlduAI or entity tllImcd .buvc,
Ifdlt: reAder of tbb 􀁴􀁮􀁴􀀢􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁃􀁾􀀠i. nClltte "tttndr.d 􀁒􀁣􀁩􀀨􀁊􀁩􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁕􀀠Art bereby 􀁮􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁤􀀠(hVll1ft,)' umultborlztd dlutm,ntUon.dbtrUudtun Ill' cOllyfng
ottnll fommltlllclittlJn j,"frltdy 􀁰􀁬􀀧􀁯􀁢􀁩􀁢􀁩􀁾􀁦􀀺􀁉􀁉􀀮􀀠lfytlU hntttcffVtd dU, 􀀨􀀧􀀮􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁵􀁮􀁪􀁾􀀮􀀨􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁜fttOf, plCllllt ilnmfdlattl), BoUff UI by> tc!cJlhtlnc III
lilt lllSfilbN'Jli.fed. 1"tufnk 􀁾􀁑􀁕􀀺􀀬􀀠
SENT BV: 214 70s 0921 MAV.12·04.12:02PM; PAGE 2113 Maris & Lanier A Professional Corporalioo 1450 Mcadow Pork Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Centr.1 Ii.pre.sway Dall••, Texas 75231 214·706·0922
,elephone 214·706-0921 facsimile awalker@morj,lanier.com May ll, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE Thomas H. Keen Looper Reed & McGraw 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 7520 J VIA FACSIMILE
Zach T. Mayer Fee Smith Sharp & VitullQ, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 Re; Pal Milliken v. Town ojAddison, el at Cause No. 02·4715·F ill Lhe
116ill Distlict Coun, Dallas County File No. 607-066 Dear Counsel: Auached please find the following: I. Notice of Ora! Deposition Duces Tecu.rri of Gary M. Petit, P.E.; 2. Notice ofOral
Deposition Duces Teeun'! of Roberl P. White; and 3. NOlice of Oral Deposition Duces TticuniofClyde Cn.un. The depositions have been noticed for JUne 23, and 24 beginning at 10;00 a.m.
at pur office. Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to cllll. Sincerely, Enclosure 􀁁􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁾􀀡􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀠to Robert F. Maris 
SENT BV: 214 706 0921 MAV·12·04 12:02PMi PAGE 3/13 CC: VIA. FACSIMILE Marion WlIrd & Associates (w/cnc1.) 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921 UAV·12·04 12:02PM; PAGE" 4/13 bec: VIA FACSIMJU Rickey G-aTen Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool P.O. Box 149194 􀁁􀁵􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁮􀀬􀀠Ttlxas 78754 (w/encl.)
VIA FACStMILE Ken Dippel Cowles & Thompson 90 I Main Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75202 (w/encl.) VLA i!'ACSIMTLE Michael E. Murphy, P.E. Lynn Chandler Town of Addison 16&0 I Wcstgrove
Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 (w/enel.) "Gentlemen, the enclosed deposition 11()liccs are for Plainutrs designated experts. Your attendance is not mandatory, but you ure welcome to
attend. If you do want to attend, please advise me priur IU the depositions, so that I may advise the other side. Thank you. 
SENT BY: 214 708 0921 MAY-12-04 12:02PM; PAGE 5/13 CAUSE N'o, 02·4715·F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § § ll6th JUDICIAL DTSTRlCT TOWN OF AODTSON, THE PRESTON
§ GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES. § INC. and JON B. COLEMAN. § § 􀁄􀁥􀁦􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀠§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DIkES TECUM OF
GARY M. PETIT. P.E. To: Pillintifl; Pat MillikeJ1. by and $rough her attorney ofrecord, Thomas H. Keen, Looper Reed & McGraw) 60 I Elm Street. Suile 4100, Dallas, Texas 75201. To: 􀁄􀁥􀁦􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴�
�􀀠The PresIon Group Designers and Builders. William Long, Preston Homes,lnc., and Jon Bi: Coleman, by and through their attorney of record, Zach Mayer, Fee, SmithJ)harp & Vitullo, LLP,
One Galleria Tower. 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200, Dallas. Texas 75240. Please take notice that Defendant Town of Addison ("Defendant") will take the oral deposition ofGary M. Petit, P
.E., at Maris & Lanier, p,c., 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450, DaHas, Texas 75231 on June 23, 2004 beginning al 10:00 a.m. and continuing thereafter Irom day to day until the
deposition is 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁾􀁤􀁟􀀠Please lake further notice that deponent"shall produce at the commencement of the taking afthe deposition, the documents listed on Exhibit "An attached
hereto. NQTrCE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF GARY M. PETIT. PoE. I'AGE 1 
SENT BY: 214 706 0921 MAY·12·04 12:02PM; PAGE 6/13 Respectfully submitted, MARIS & LANIER,P.C. 􀁜􀁚􀀿􀁾􀀠􀁒􀁯􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀱􀁆􀀮􀁾􀀠.. State Bar No. 12986300 Marigny A. Lanier State BarNo.
11933200 Michael J. McKleroy, Jr. Siale Bar No. 24000095 10440 N. Central Bxpressway Suite 1450, LB 702 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-706-0920 telephone 214·706·0921 facsimile A TIORNEYS FOR
DEfENDANT TOWN Of ADDlSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is tn certify that a true, correct and 'iomplete copy ofthe foregoing instrument has been served in accordance with Rule 21a uflhe
Texas Rules ofCi...!1 Procedure on May 11,2004 to: Thomas 1-1. Keen Looper Reed & McGraw 1601 Elm Street. Suile 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 VIA FACSIMiLE Anthony Vitullo ZachMayer Fee,
Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE NOTICE OF ORAl, DEPOSITION DUqjS 'fEcull:J Qf GARY M. pETIT, P.E. PAGEl 
SENT BY; 214 708 0921 MAV·12·04 12:02PM; PAGE 7113 EXHIBIT "A" .:1. Definitions The term "documtnt" is defined to 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁬􀁾􀁤􀁥􀀠any and all mWlller of written, 􀁴􀁹􀁰􀁾􀁤􀀮􀀠printed,
reproduced. filmed or recorded material, and all photographs, pictures, plans or other represenlalions ofany kind ofanything pertaining, describing, referring,correlating, directly or indirectly, in wholc or in part. to each request, and tho. term includes, but is not limited 10: (a) 􀁐􀁾􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀬􀀠books, mcords, pamphlets, joumals, ledgers,
accounts, telexes, stalemcnts, memoranda, reports, invoices, work sheets, work papers, stenographic or handwritten notes, transcriptions of notes. leiters correspondence. witness statemelllS
(whether written 01' recorded), abstracts, checks. reports. surveys, calculation cards, computer tupes or print-outs, diagrams, ::plans, specitications, pictures, drawings. films, photographs,
graphic representations. diaries, calendars, desk calendars, pocket calendar$, 􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁢􀀬􀀠logs, studies, pilblieations, advertisements, Instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders,
􀁭􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀬􀀠resumes, summaries, agreements, contracts, telegrams, telexes, cables, recotdings, audio tapes, magnetic lapes, visual tapes, 􀁴􀁲􀀼􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁳􀁾􀁔􀁩􀁰􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁯􀁦􀁬􀁡􀁰􀁴􀀮􀀧􀁓􀀠or
recordiJigs, or any other writing. typing, pJinting, photostats, or other fOJms ofcommunications are recorded or reproduced, 􀁡􀁾􀁷􀁥􀁬􀁬􀀠as all notations 011 the foregoing; . (b) Originals
and all other copies 􀁮􀁾􀁴􀀠absolutely identical, such as copies containing II commentary or notation ofany kind that does not appear on the original Of any other copy; (c) All drafts
and notes (whether typeu, handwritten or otherwise) made or prepared in conneclion wilh 􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁾􀁨􀀠􀁤􀁵􀁣􀁵􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁬􀁳􀀮􀀠whether used or not; and (d) Any other writing or recording
ofany kinds. II. Requested Documents I. Any documents reflecting the opinions to be given by Gary M. Petit at the trial in this case. 2. All reports prepared by GIllY M; Petit in cOlUlcction
with this cal;l:O. 3. All docwuellts reviewed by or relied upon by Gary M. Petit in 􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠his opinions. 4. Any agreements bctween Plaintiff or Plaintiffs counsel and Gary
M. Peti!. NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF GARV M. PETIT, P.E. PAGEJ 
SENT BY: 214 70S 0921 MAY·12·M 12:03PM; PAGE a/13 CAUSE NO, 02-4715-1' PAT MILLIKEN, Pluimin; v, TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, WlLLlAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES,
INC, and JON B. COLEMAN, Defendants, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § § § § J J 6th JUDICIAL DlSTIUCT § § § § § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF ROBERT P. WroTE
To: Plaintiff, Pal Milliken, by and through her atLomey of record. Thomas H. Keen, Looper Reed & McGrolw,:1601 Elm Street, Suite 4J00, DalJas, Texas 75201. To: Defendants The Preston
Group Designers and Builders, William Lollg. Preston Homes, Inc .• and Jon a: Coleman, by and through their attorney of record, Zilch Mayer, Fee, Smith.:Sharp & Vitullo. LLP, One Galleria
Tower, 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200, Dalla$, Texas 75240. Please luke notice that Defendant Town of Addison ("Defendant") will take the oral depositicm c>fRobert p, White at Maris & Lanier,
P.C, 10440 N, Central ExprCllsway, SlIite 1450, Dallas, Texas 75231 on June 23. 2004 bcgilUling at 2:00 p.m. and cominuing 􀁉􀁨􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁬􀀱􀁥􀁲􀀠from day to day until the deposition
is completed. Please take further notice that deponent:shall produce at (he commencement of the taking ofthe deposition, the documents listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. .NOTICE
OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TEcuM OF ROBERT 1'. WHITE PAGEl 
SENT BV: 214 70s 0921 MAV-12-04 12:03PM; PME 9{13 Respectfully submitted, MARlS & l,ANIER,P.C. Robert F. Maris State Bar No. 12986300 Marigny A. bnier Slale Bar No. 119)3200 Michael
J. McKleroy, Jr. Stale Bur No. 24000095 10440 N. Central Expressway Suile 1450, LB 702 Dallas, TC){!Is 75231 214· 706·0920 telephlll1e 214.􀀷􀀰􀀶􀂷􀀰􀁾􀀲􀀱􀀠tacsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDISON CERTlFICA'FE OF SERVICE This is to cerlily thaI a (rue, correct and 􀁾􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁬􀁥copy ofthe foregoing illstnlment has been served ill accordance with Rule 2Ja of the
Texas 􀁒􀁵􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠of Civil Procedure on May 11,2004 to: Thomas H. Keen Looper Reed & McGraw 1601 Elm Street, Suile 4100 Dallas, Te)(!lS 75201 VIA FACSIMILE Anthony Vitullo ZachMaycr
Fee, Smith, Sharp 8£ Vitullo, LLP One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road. Suile 1200 Dallas, Texas 15240 VIA FACSIMILE Robert F. Maris NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITIQN DUCES TEcuM OF ROBKRT P.
WHITE PAGEl 
SENT 8V: 214 70S 0921 UAV·12·04 12;03PM; PAGE 􀀱􀀰􀀯􀁴􀁾􀀠ExHiBIT "An I. DeiWtiQns The term "docLlment" is defined to inclllde any and all manner of written, typed, printed, reproduced,
mmed or recordedmateriul, Qnd all photographs, pictures, plans or other representations ofany kind of anythingpf:!rtailling, describing, referring, correlating, directly or indirectly,
in whole or in part, to each request, and the term includes, but is nollimiled 10: (<l) Papers, books. records, 􀁰􀁡􀁭􀁰􀁨􀁬􀁾􀀬􀀠journals, ledgers, accounts, telexes, statements, memoranda,
reports, invoices, work sheets, work papers, stenographic or handwritten notes, transcriptions of notes, letters correspondence, witness statements (whether written or recorded), abstracts,
checks, reports, surveys, calculation cards, computer tupes or print-outs, diagrams, '. plans, specifications, pictures, drawings, films. photographs, graphic representiilions, diaries,
calendars. desk calendars, pockel calendars, lists, logs, Sh.dil;S, pi:lblications. advertisements, instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders, messages, resumes, summaries, agreements,
contracts, telegrams, telexes, cables, recordings, audio tapes, magnetic lUpes, visual tapes, transcriptions oftapes or recordiJigs. or any other writing, typing, printing, photostats,
or other tOmlS ofcommunicatioriS are recorded or reproduced, us well as all notations on the foregoing; . (b) Originals and all other copies n6t absolLltely identical. such as copies
containing a commentary or notation ofany kilod that does not appear on the original or any other copy; (c) All drafts and notes (whether typed, handwritten or otherwise) mede or prepared
in connection with such documentS, whether used or nOli and (d) Any other writing or recording Of any kinds. J1. Requested Documents I. Any documents reileeti"g the opinions to be given
by Robert P. White a\ the trial in this casco 2. All reports prepared by Robert P. White in connection with this CUSf:!. 3. All documents reviewed hy 􀁯􀁾􀀧􀀠relied UpOIl by Robert P.
White in rcaching his opinions. 4. Any agreements between Plaintifl' Or Plaintiffs counsel and Robert P. While. NOTICE OF OR4L DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM Or ROIIERT p, WHITE PAGE3 
SENT !IV: 214 70S 0921 MAV-12-04.12:03PM; PAGE 11/13 CAUSE NP, 02-4715-F PAT MILLIKEN. § TN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff. § § v. § § t 16th JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF ADDISON. THE PRESTON
§ GROUP DESIGNERS AND BmLDERS. § WILLIAM LONG. PRESTON HOMES, § INC. and JON B. COLEMAN, § § 􀁄􀁾!t.ndants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF CLYDE CRUM
Ttl: Plaintiff, Pat Milliken. by and ihrough her attorney of record, 􀁔􀁨􀁯􀁭􀁡􀁾􀀠H. Keen, Looper Reed & McGraw,)601 Elm Street, Suite 41 00, Dallas, Texas 75201. To: 􀁄􀁥􀁦􀁾􀁉􀁬􀁤􀁾􀁮􀁬􀁳􀀠The
Presloll Group Designers and Builders, William Long, Preston Homes, Inc., and Jon B:: Coleman, by and through their attorney of record. Zach Mayer, Fee, Smith,'Sharp & Vitullo, LLP,
One Galleria Tower, 13355 Noel Road. Suite 1200. Dallas, Texas 75240.. , Please tuke notice that Defendant Town of Addison ("Defendant") will take the oral deposition ofClyde Crum al
Maris & Lanier; P.C .. I0440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1450. Dallas, Texas 75231 on June :14.;1004 beginnilIg 11110;00 lII.m.lIra} continuing thel'eafter from day to day until the
deposition is completed. Please take further notice that deponent ·shall produce at the commencement of the taking of the deposition, the documents listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
NOTICE OF ORAL DF.POSITION DUCES TEcuM 01' CLYDE CRUM PAGE I 
SENT BV: 214 7M 0921 MAV-12·04 12:04PMj PAGE 12/13 Respectfully submitted, MARJS & LANlER, P.C. Robert F. MtI!is State Btl! No. 12986300 Mariglly A. Lanier State Bar No. 11933200 Michael
J. McKleroy, Jr. Stllte Bar No. 24000095 10440 N, Cenlral Expressway Suite 1450, LB 702 Dallas, Tex.as 7523 I 214-706-0920 telephone 214-706·0921 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TOWN
Of' ADDISON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify tbat a true, correct and! complete copy of the foregoing instrument has been 􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁾􀁤􀀠in accordance with Rule 21a of the' Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure on May 11,2004 to: Thomas H. Keen Looper Reed & McGraw 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 7520] VIA FACSIMILE Anthony Vituflo Zallh 􀁍􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲􀀠Fee, Smith,
Sharp & Vitullo, LLP One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallm;, Texas 75240 VIA FACSIMILE Roben F, Marls NOTICE Of' OM.. DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF CLYDE CRUM PAG£1 
SENT BV: 214 706 0921 MAV·12-04 12:04PM; PAGE 13113 EXHIBII"A" 1 Definitions 􀁔􀁨􀁾􀀠term "documenl" is defined to incl6de any Illld all'manner of wrillen, typed, printed, reproduced,
filmed or recorded material, and all photographs, picl\1res, plftJls (lrothcf representations ofany kind of anything pertaining, describing, n!ferring, correlating, directly or indirectly,
in whole or in part, to each request, and the term includes, but is not limited to: (a) Papers, books, records. pamphlets, jourllals, ledgers, accounts, 􀁴􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁸􀁣􀁾􀀬􀀠sllltcments,
memoranda, repons, invoices, weirk sheets, work papers, stenographic or hundWl'i!ten notes. trunscriptions of notes, leiters correspondence, witness statements (whether Wl'inen or recorded),
􀁡􀁢􀁂􀀱􀀺􀁲􀀸􀁃􀁾􀀬􀀠djecks. reporls, survcys, calculation cards, computer tapes or print-outs, diagrams, :plIlllS, speeificatio!lll. pictures, drawings, lilms, photographs, graphic
representtitions, diaries, calendars, desk calendars, pocket calendars. lists, logs, studies, pUblications, lIuvenisemcnts, instructions, minutes, orders, purchase orders, 􀁭􀁣􀁳􀁳􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀬􀀠resumes
, summuries, agreements, contracts, telegrams, telexes, cables, recoi'dings, audio tapes, magnetic tapes, visual tapes, tnmsctiptions oftapes or recordings. or IIny other writing, typing,
printing, phO!Qslats, or other forms ofcommunications arc recorded orreproduced, lI.S well as all nollltions on the foregoing; (b) Originals and all other copies nOt absolutely identical,
such as copies contailling a commentary or nOlution ofany kind that docs not appear on the original (lr any other copy; (c) All drafts and notes (wh.ether typed, hundwrinen or otherwise)
mude or prcpared in connection with such documentS, whether used or 110t; and (d) Any other writing or recording of any kinds, .11. Requested Documents 1. Any documents 􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁬􀁣􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠op
inions to be given by Clyde Crom at the trial in this case, 2. All reports prepared by Clyde Ci-um in connection with this case, 3. All documents reviewed by or relied upon by Clyde
Crum in reaching his opinions. 4, Any agreements between Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel and Clyde Crum. NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF CLYDE CRVM ),AGE3 
. FOA OFFICE USE ONLY IILDING INSPECTION 'WN OF ADDIOON 1 )WN 0F ADDISON ). SOX' 9010' IDISON;1'x 76001-9010 PERMIT APPLICATION'2/4."!Ir2PJ!J) ! .' 􀀧􀀧􀀱􀁢􀁾􀀰􀀴􀀠oL'• ZONING .-I 􀁑􀁃􀁃􀁕􀁐􀁾􀁃􀁙􀀠C
ONSTRucnON .;-:61 'llS PlUMBER lUNG lUNG 1IGAroN ADDISON UC. NO. CITY )TES; 􀁾􀁦􀁜􀀱􀀱􀀠􀀬􀁢􀁬􀁻􀁊􀁾􀀠􀂥􀀱􀁾􀁏􀀠+<..,/") 1# ).. ')0 <; 􀁾􀀠15 J>. • , ' WOIlK BEING DON!;" . AREA IN SQUARE
FEET tJ'l,7¢fI:'. USE OF BUILDING· /S ''',13'\0.. 􀁾􀁷􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀠NEW8LDG. a EXT, REMODEL 􀀨􀁾􀁉􀁁􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁊􀀠'ESTIMATED EVALUATION <!>oINT. COMI'LETION a POOL /, 60D 􀁓􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀠ADDInON
a'iRRIGAroN UTILITY INFORMATION' NAME OF TENANT REPAIR a OTHER (EXPLAIN) SIZE NUMBER \J rIi'<: '. GAS IN NT.REMODEL WATER METER BUIlDING SEWER TAP o YES ONO rE OF APPLICATION SIGNATURE
􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁁􀀮,. . . .'TICE TO APPLICANT This perimt Is Issued on the basIs of Information furnished In thIS application and on any submitted plans, lis to the provisions and requirements
of the Town of Addison Code of Ordinances and any other applicable ordinance. This permit 􀁾􀁾􀁵􀁥􀁤􀀠only for the purpose of allowing construction conforming to the codes and ordinances
of the Town, regardless of information 
􀁂􀁕􀁉􀁌􀁏􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁎􀁓􀁐􀁅􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠TOWN C;: ArJD(SON TOWN 0F ADDISOl\' P.O: BOX'. 9010 ADDISON, IX 15001-9010 PERMIT APPLICATION972/lf!IY-213PIJ ' DAtE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ZONING
􀁾􀁜􀀠OCCUPANCY r:. -3 CONSTRUC11ON sUrre NUMBER MAIUNG ADDRESS r' Iqo' oN 􀀯􀀩􀁴􀀬􀁾􀀠II .7 () t'-J...e 2a'5 MAlUNG ADDRESS 􀁉􀁒􀁒􀁉􀁇􀁁􀀱􀀱􀀰􀁎􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁔􀁒􀁁􀁾􀀠r ,\ I r:z. '1 e'i.(}...J
􀀨􀁊􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊􀁡􀀮􀀺􀀫􀁾􀀠J.j0',l g MAIUNGADDRESftJ 􀁾I.􀁾􀀮􀀨􀀠06 b I ADDISON UC. NO. ' n ""' , J( J_ 'lC", X'f ADDISON UC. NO. I /q-A7 LX )'1(" ADDISON 1 IC NO. CITY AOQlSON' '0
·00. LOT 􀁾􀀠BLOCK PHONE-STATE 􀁾􀀠r 􀁚􀁉􀁐􀀮􀀬􀁃􀀬􀁾􀁅'I""'" "1600"t PHONE STATE ' ZIP CODE . NOTES: 􀁾tt 􀁊􀀩􀁉􀁭􀀻􀁾􀁔􀁌􀀹􀀠+<../") 􀀮􀁴􀁔􀁴􀁾􀀠3?2.l5 DATE ISSUED-• 9-"1-0I AREA IN
SQUARE FEa; USE SlE BUILDI!::I1aY"0RK BEING OONe . ,tf7/..i ¢ RStu).f.. (oe. .. h\V.,.., 􀁾􀁾􀀦􀀮􀁾􀁅􀁗􀁂􀁌􀁄􀁇􀀮􀀠' o EXT. REMODel. I .\ I"VAIIIAT'''''' iJ INT. COMPIi:UON o POOL 􀁃􀁦􀀳􀁾􀁏􀀧􀁯􀁴􀀩�
�􀀳􀁾􀀬􀀷􀀱􀀡􀀩􀂰􀀱􀀠o ADDmON O"IRRIGA110N UTILITY INFORMATION 􀁾􀁁􀁍􀁅OF TE!:lI!ffi; o REPAIR ' 0 OTHER (EXPLAIN) ts{-A:SIZE NUMBER GAS IN .:::l INT. REMODel. BUILDINGWATER METER o
YES ONOSEWER TAP ;lATE OF APP\ 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀧􀁬􀁎7􀁳􀁾4-{3), \ 􀁓􀁉􀁜􀁡􀁴􀁬􀁁􀁉􀁬􀀮􀀡􀁦􀁬􀀵􀁾􀀠NOTICE TO APPLICANT This pennlt is Issued on the basis of infonnab\ojJmished In this applicaUon
and on any submitted plans, . and Is to the provisions and requirements of the Town of Addison Gode of Ordinances and any other applicable ordinance. This pennlt 1. issued cnly for the
purpose of allowing construction confonnlng to the codes and ordinances of the Town, regardless of information and/or plans submitted. 
ZONING OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING 􀁉􀁎􀁓􀁉􀀾􀁅􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁾􀁬􀀩􀀿􀁩􀁪􀁎􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁾TOWN OF ADDISON il a 1\'1 '. JWN OF ADDISON P.O. BOX 9010 ] -(-vr-ADDISON, TX 75001
PERMIT APPLICATION 972/45()-2&'J) . DATE y.& '62 CONSTRUCTlON ADDRESS SUITE NUMBER SUBDIVlSION BlOCK BUILDING OWN PHONE GENERAL CONTRACTOR 􀁾􀀠MAILING ADDRESS PLUMBING CONTRACTOR -<..
._ .I',c..)cou-tnW-es.: MAIUNGADDRESS I􀁾-:;01 B' . 􀁾􀀼􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁲D I 􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀮􀀲􀁏􀁩􀁯􀁉􀀲􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀻􀀢􀀧........􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀢􀁾􀀫􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁌􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁉􀀭HVAC
CONTRACTOR ADDISON lIC; NO; PHONEI MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE elECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MAILING ADDRESS . IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR ADDISON lie. NO; MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NOTES: DATE ISSUED: 4 -J10 -0J..t WORK BEING DONE o NEWBLDG. o EXT. REMODEL o INT. COMPLETION 􀁾􀁏􀁌􀀠o ADDITION O'IRRIGATION o REPAIR o OTHER (EXPLAIN) o INT. REMODEL DATE OF APPLICATION
. 8 oJ-AREA IN SQUARE FEET o ESTIMATED EVALUATIO UTILITY INFORMATION SIZE NUMBER NUMBER WATER METER ___ SEWER TAP SIGNATURE GAS IN BUILDING o YES ONO USE OF BUILDING NAME OF TENANT NOTICE
TO APPLICANT This permit is issued on the basis of information furnls d In this application and on any submitted p(ans, and is to the proVisions and requirements of the Town of Addison
Code of Ordinances and any other applicable ordinance. This permit is issued only for the purpose of allowing construction conforming to the codes and ordinances of the Town, regardless
of information 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁉􀁬__ _ 1 ___ _ ...... _:.... _.J 
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING INSPECTION 􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁩􀁬It J • OWN OF ADDISON IZONING R-I TOWN OF ADDISONP.O. BOX 9010 , ADDISON, TX 75Q01-901 ?)/8-o OOCUPANCYPERMIT APPL1CATION 1?--.3>
CONSTRUCTION DAtE 􀁾􀀠\1::> 􀁾􀁺􀀮􀀹􀀷􀀲􀀯􀁾􀁾􀀠"I/O CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS SUITE NUMBERlL\qO\ LA.....1it tc........Sl' \JR. SUBDIVISION LOT IBLOCK . BUILDING OWNER PHONE.􀁾􀁾􀁜􀁏􀁾􀀠􀁜􀁾􀁏􀁾'S
CrTYMAILING ADDRESS STATE IZIP CODE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ADDISON LIC. NO. PHONE \ CrTYMAILING ADDRESS STATE IZIP CODE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR ADDISON L1C. NO. PHONE MAIUNG ADDRESS CrTY STATE
IZIP CODE HVAC CONTRACTOR ADDISON UC. NO, PHONE STATE , ZIP CODECrTYMAILING ADDRESS I ! ADDISON LIe. NC. PHONEELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE IZIPCODE I 􀁉􀁁􀁁􀁉􀁇􀁁􀁾􀁃􀁔􀁏􀁗􀀠.
PHONE l.i3ADDISON 􀁌􀁉􀁾􀀧􀀳􀀵􀀧􀀠6(;) '"7 <172.-733-43 ¥􀁉􀁇􀀺􀁘􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠STNfx:􀁍􀁁􀁉􀁌􀁬􀁎􀁾􀁄􀁒􀁾􀁾􀀠t1Dt \\:.. )-:-k. 􀀱􀀷􀁾􀀰􀀳􀀱􀁱,t:>. 1'1:.0'& T tA"",: 7"5'319 CITY
Dc..'\.\...'1=\"".> NOTES: , 􀁃􀁾􀁌50 .J::vIf-'/UA/h􀁾􀀠"V"V 6 1.J3 'tJ q"'{3 􀁾􀀠3-'Z-$,...----"'-'----So ,() '';> t<:> k \ .,,-I "J 3 . 'l..5 if.,. AREA IN SQUARE FEET USE OF BUILDINGWQFlKBEING
DONii' o NEW BLDG. o EXT. REMODEL ESTIMATED EVALUATION '0 Q INT. COMPLETION Ol5Cc,'O􀁾􀁌􀀠o ADDrnON IRRIGATION UTILITY INFORMATION NAME OF TENANT Q REPAIR Q OTi-iER (EXPLAIN) SIZE NUMBER
GAS IN Q INT. REMODEL BUILDINGWATER METER aYESSEWER TAP aNol 􀀮􀁾􀀠DATE OF APPLICATION SIGNATURE £'J 􀁾􀁜'1 02\3 \. NOTICE TO APPLICANT This permll is issued on the basis of information
furnished in this applicalon and on any submitted plans, and is to the proVisions and requirements of the Town of Addison Code of Ordinances and any other applicable ordinance. This
permit is issued only for the purpose of allowing construction confonning to the codes and ordinances of the Town. regardless of information 
HP LaserJet 3200S8 HP LASERJET 3200 MAY-1S-2004 4:13PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification 757 5/18/2004 4:11;09PM Send 92147060921 TOWN OF ADDISON 􀀢􀁾􀀦􀀭To' ( 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁮􀁹􀁾􀁟􀀠FAX
#:_____..____ 􀁾􀀠Dale, S-􀁾􀀯􀁉􀁦-0'f No. ofP.gaa(lncludlna 􀁣􀀻􀁏􀁖􀁏􀁴􀁬􀀺􀁾􀀠Duration Pages 2:37 5 Mich.e' E. Murphy. P.E. Director of Public Works Offlce: 9721450'4:876 Fax: 9721.450*2831
16801 Westgrove p.o, 601. aoiO Mdlson, TX 750G1..s010 invent Result OK 
.' BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 16801 W."grove Dri.. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀂮(972) 450·288Q FaJ<' (972) 450-2837 Pos' Office Bo. 9010 Add;'on, T....75001·9010 March 6, 2002 Ms. Pat Milliken
14905 Lake Forest Drive Addison, Texas 75254 pear Ms. Milliken: I had a meeting with Bill Long to discuss the retaining wall on the north property line of the home under construction
at 14901 Lake Forest Drive, . Addison, Texas. He informed me that after the soil settles in this area he will grade the area to approximately fDur inches below the top of the retaining
wall. The roof will have raih gutters that drain to the front and rear of the property. That will leave only the five to six foot area between the house an9 retaining wall that will
receive direct rainfall or water from the sprinkler system. Due to the size of this area, the water that falls in this area shouldn't drain over the top of the retaining wall. If a portion
of the runoff should breach the wall there is a drainage easement along the wall that will accommodate such an occurrence. Ifyou have any questions, you may reach me at 972/450-2889.
Sincerely, . 􀁾􀀯􀁊􀀠􀁾􀀠 􀀻􀀥􀁁􀁫􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾Official ( 
ENVIRONMEl'fr § 34-114 (g) In the event that the owner ofthe properly fails or refuses or for any other reason does not paythe expenses specified in subsection (f) ofthis section within
30 days after the first day of the month following the month in which the work was done or improvements were made by the town, the city council may assess expenses incurred, those expenses
defined in subsection (f) of this section, against the real estate on which the work was done or improvements made by the town. (b) 'lb obtain a lien against the property, the city council,
the town health authority, the city manager, or town tax authority shall file a statement of expenses, those expenses defined in subsection (f) of this section, with the county clerk.
The lien statement must state the name of the owner, ifknown, and the legal description of the property the lien attaches upon the filing of the lien statement with the county clerk.
State law reference-Similar provisions.V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code § 342.007(b). (il The lien obtained by the town is security for the expenditures made and interest accruing at
the rate of ten percent on the amount due from the date of payment by the town. (;) The lien is inferior only to: (1) Tax liens; and (2) Liens for street improvements. (k) The city council
may foreclose a lien on properly under this section in a proceeding relating to the properly brought under Y.T.C.A., Tax Code ch. 33, subch. E (Y.T.CA., Tax Code § 33.91 et seq.). State
lawreferenee-Similarprovisions) V:T.C.A.. Health and Safety Cod. § 342.007(h). (I) In lieu of utilizing the provisions of subsection (;) of this section, the town may bring a forclosure
action to recover the expenditures and interest due. (m) The statement of expenses or a certified copy of the statement is prima facie proof of the expenses incurred by the town in doing
the work or making the improvements. (n) The remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to all other remedies avallable to the town. (Code 1982, § 10-26) Sec. 34·114. Nuisance
located upon ease· ments; duties of abutting property owners and occupants. (a) For purposes ofthis section, the term "easement" shall mean a right, vested in the public generally or
in the community as a whole, to use and enjoy the land ofanother person for a special purpose. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, all drainage and floodway dedications or
easements located within the corporate limits ofthe town. In the event that a nuisance is found to exist upon any easement within the town, or in the event that any person whose property
is burdened by any easement within the town limits, fails to comply with the foregoing provision of this article, the city manager or his duly appointed representative may give a ten-day
official notice to such person which is creating such nuisance or is violating the terms ofthis article. If such person fails or refuses to comply with the provisions ofsection 35-115
and division 2 of this article within the ten days following notification, they shall be considered to be in violation and subject to a fine as provided in section 1-7 ofthis Code. The
provisions of this section shall apply only to the owner of the servient estate or the properly burdened by the easement and shall not apply to the grantee or holder of such easement.
Property owners and occupants shall be jointly responsible for nuisances and abatement thereof under this article up to the curb or sidewalk, and between the curb and sidewalk, of the
streets and to the pavement of alleys on abutting property they own or occupy. Existing drainage areas and creeks traversing drainage and floodway, easements within the town shall remain
as open channels (unless required to be enclosed by other ordinances) at all times and shall be maintained by the individual owners of the lots that are traversed by or adjacent to the
drainage and floodway easementa. The town shall not be responsible for maintenance or operation of such creeks or drainage or for any damage or injury to private property or person that
results from the CD34:11 
WATER CODE -CHAPTER 11 Page 1 ofl § 11.086[0]. OVERFLOW CAUSED BY DIVERSION OF WATER. (a) No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit
a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded. (b) A person whose property is injured
by an overflow of water caused by an unlawful diversion or impounding has remedies at law and in equity and may recover damages occasioned by the overflow. (c) The prohibition of Subsection
(al of this section[O] does not in any way a the construction and maintenance of levees and other improvements to control floods, overflows, and freshets in rivers, creeks, and streams
or the construction of canals for conveying water for irrigation or other purposes authoriZed by this code. However, this subsection does not authorize any person to construct a canal,
lateral canal, or ditch that obstructs a river, creek, bayou, gully, slough, ditch, or other well-defined natural drainage. (d) Where gullies or sloughs have cut away or intersected
the banks of a river or creek to allow floodwaters from the river or creek to overflow the land nearby, the owner of the flooded land may fill the mouth of the gullies or sloughs up
to the height of the adjoining banks of the river or creek without liability to other property owners. Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 2207, ch. 870, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977. http://www.capitol.s
tate.tx.us/cgi-binlcqcgi?CQ..SESSION_KEY=UJLPEKVGSRUV &C... 5/18/2004 
SENT BV: 214 709 0921 APR-9-04 11:23AM; PAGE 1/4 Maris & Lanier A ProfcssiQnal Corporation 1450 Me.dowPark Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Cen".lllxpressway Dalla$, Tex3S 75231 TELECOPIER COVER
SHEET PLEASE DEUVER TO ADDRESSEE TMMEDIATELY Dal",; April 9, 2004 To: Rickey Garen Via Telecopier Number: (512)491·2366 To: Ken DiQllei Via Telecopier Number: (214'672·2020 To: Mike
Mumhy Via Telecopier Number: (972)450·2837 To: Lynn Chandler Via Telecopier Number: (9721450·2837 To: LarlJlDobbs Via 1-elecopier Number: (972) 722·8655 To: Charlie Johnson Via Telecopier
Number: (9721503·9143 To: Mark W. Roberts Vill Telecopier Number: (214)739.5961 To: Stlln Randa II Via Telecopier Number: (972)772·5314 To: Janice Moore Via Telecopier Number: (972)732.6003
From: Amy L. Walker. Legal Assistant Direct Phone Number (214) 706-0922 DireCI Telecopier Number (2t 4) 706-092 t Pages: Cover +.3.. If YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL Aulna
at: 214·706·0932 Re: File No. 6Q1-O§,Q; Pal Milliken v. Town ofAddison /Message: See attathed attathed Notice ofJury Trial Setting for August 2, 2004. _ Original willlQllow by mail Original
will NOT follow by mail The i.r.rmatinR<onlalned I .. tbb raeMml1e ItItSSage is attome)' privileged Ind confideRfi.1 information Intended !>nly ror Ih. u•• of the individual or cnllty
..amed .buve. 1£ tbe re"d.r or tbt. message Is not the iotonded recipient. you are bereby noHlitd thot any unautborized disseminAtion. disl,iblll!on o••opying of tblo eommunicatloniutrldly
problbltod. ICyo. bave r ...ived Ihi. (omm un loatlon in ermr, pl..... lmmed..tely notify us by telepbone at tit. Dumbers listed. Tb.nk you. 
214 706 0921 APR·9·0411:24AMj PAGE 2/4􀁓􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁬􀁔􀀠BV: Maris & Lanier A 􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀱􀀠Corporation 1450 Meadow Park Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Central EKpresswny noll ....
Texas 7$231 214·706-0920 telephone 214-706-0921 fa.simile 214-706-0922 direct dial awalker@marislnnicr.com April 9. 2004 VIA FACSIMILE ONLY Rickey Garon Robert Stanley ("Stan") Randall.
Jr. Texas Municipal Lengue Robert Stanley (,'Robert") Randall. 1TI Tntergovernmental Risk Pool Arboricuiturai Systems Integration P.O. Box 149194 Route 6, Box 240 Austin. Texas 78754
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482 Ken Dippel Larry E. Dobbs, MAl Cowles & Thompson Mike Shaw, MAl 901 Main Street, Suite 4000 Larry l!. Dobbs, MAl, Inc. Dallas, TX 75202 105 North Alamo Rockwall,
Texas 75087 Michael E. Murphy, P.E. I.ynn Chandler Mark W. Roberts, P.E. Town of Addison Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers 16801 Westgrove Urivo 8080 Park Lane, Suite 600 Addison,
Texas 75001·9010 Dflilas. Texas 75231 Charles D. Johnson Janice Moore 4106 Courtshire 6011 Derek Trail Dallas, Texas 75229 Dallas, Texas 75252 Re: Pat Milliken v. City ofAddison lML
Cluim No. 0200085821 File No. 6Q7"()66 Dcar Ladies and ()entlemen: Attached pleose find II copy of the Notice of Jury Trial Setting for August Z, 2004. Please mark this date/time on
your calendar as each ofyou will need to be present at least a portion ofthis week for trial lestimony. A corporate representative from the Town of Addison will need to be present during
the entire trial. If)lUU haw l1li)' conflicts with this week, plcase advise me at your earliest convenience. 
214 706 M21 APR·Q·0411:24AM; PAGE !lJ4SENT BY: Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, MARlS & LANIER, P.C. Enclosure alker ssistant to Robert F. Maris 
SENT !lV: 214 70S M21 􀁁􀁐􀁒􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀰􀀴􀀠11 􀀺􀀲􀀴􀁁􀁾􀀻􀀠PAGE 4/4 t.'·······.. ·....··\ i'. ,j \: -:./'It•••••:::....._ 116TH DISTRICT COURT GEORGE L. ALLEH. SR. CQURTS BUILDING 600
COMMERCE 􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁔􀀠DALLAS. TEXAS 75202-4610 ChaMber. of JUDGE ROBERT H. FROST APRIL 5. 2004 ROBERT FRANK MARIS 10440 N CENTRAL EXPRWY SUITE 􀀱􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀬􀀠LI 702 DAL LAS TX 75Z31 RE;
Case Mo. OZ0471S-F MILLIKEN PAT VS. ADDISON TOliN OF Please take note of the following ••ttin08, Pre-Trial: 􀁊􀁵􀁲􀁾􀀠Trial, 􀁏􀁂􀀯􀀰􀀲􀀯􀁐􀁾􀀠Non 􀁊􀁵􀁾􀀠Tr18l, Trial 􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀤􀀠Bus
t b. Made in accordance with Rule. 3.02-3.05 of tha Local Rules of Dall•• 􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁾􀀮􀀠Pur.uant to Loo.l Rule 3.04. pleBse b. advised that if thi. 0." is not reached as sot. it ••y
b. carried to the following Week. 􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀠. , •'"Y'""-__ 􀀧􀀮􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠•_" :' • When no announcement is ",ade for plaintiff# this 􀁣􀁾􀀺􀁈...􀀭􀀧􀀡􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁬􀁴􀁊􀁬􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀧􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁩􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀼􀀺􀁣􀀬􀀬􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁭􀁾..􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠for
want o'l'''l'roftOIl'tli1n. Except a. provided by court order, caapleticn of discovery, presentetion of pretrial motions and other Matters rel.ting to 􀁾􀁲􀀮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠for trial
are governed by the local Rille. and the Texa. Rul •• of Civil Procedure. ROZ753 FCDSTL19 -
Maris & Lanier A Professional Corporation 1450 Meadow Park Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 214-706-0922 214-706-0921 (FAX) awalker@marislanier.com April
8,2004 Mike Murphy Public Works Department Town of Addison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Pat Milliken v. TML Claim No. 0200085821 File No. 607-0City of Addison 66 Dear Mike:
Per our telephone conversation, enclosed please find a copy of Plaintiff Pat Milliken's Response to Defendant Town of Addison's Motion for Summary Judgment. The hearing on Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude has been rescheduled to April 26,2004 at 9:00 a.m., per the Court's request. Upon a determination on the motion, we will telephone you.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ssistant to Robert F. Maris Enclosure

, r-u !:'D CAUSE NO. 02-471S-F . "" '_.. 􀀲􀁡􀁏􀁾􀀠APR -2 p' PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE 􀁄􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁉􀁃􀁔􀀭􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁾􀀠44 § 􀁄􀁉􀁾􀀯􀁾􀀯􀀻􀀠H;'MLlNPlaintiff, § DAl ,IG I GLER,'( 􀁾LAS GO .•
fEXAS§ v. § --DEPUTY § 116TH JUDI CIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON § GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WlLLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, § INC., AND JON B. COLEMAN § § Defendants.
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Pat Milliken ("Plaintiff" or "Milliken"), files this her
Response to Defendant Town ofAddison's ("Defendant" or "Town ofAddison") Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff
asserted numerous claims against the Town of Addison and The Preston Group Designers and Builders, William LOng, Preston Homes, Inc., and Jon B. Coleman arising out of damages sustained
to her real and personal property as a result ofactions and omissions on the parts ofall ofthe Defendants involved in this action. Against the Town of Addison, Ms. Milliken has asserted
the following claims: 1) negligence, 2) unlawful diversion ofwater under the Texas Water Code § 11.086, 3) trespass and damage to real property, and 4) constitutional violations, including
taking, damaging or destroying ofher property for public use without adequate compensation. PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S R£SPONSE 1'0 DEFENDANT TOWN QFADDlSQN'S 'lOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-P.ge 1 
For the reasons more specifically set out below, Ms. Milliken would show that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding each and every one ofthe claims raised against the Town
of Addison; therefore, the Town ofAddison has failed to prove that it is entitled to summary judgment on any of Ms. Milliken's claims against it as a matter oflaw. UNDISPUTED FACTS I.
On September 7, 2001, the Town ofAddison issued building permits to The Preston Group Designers and Builders and Preston Homes, Inc. (together with William Long and Jon Coleman, referred
to as "the Developers") to develop two lots adjacent to Ms. Milliken's property. Those two lots were originally one larger lot. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠3-4) 2. The Town of Addison initially
issued the building permits without requiring any sort of grading map, drainage map, or engineer's certification that the construction of any improvements on the two lots would not have
a negative impact on adjacent properties. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾4) 3. The Town of Addison claims that the Developers failed to inform the Town of Addison, prior to the issuance of the building
permits, that they intended to bring in fill dirt and raise the elevation of the two properties adjacent to Ms. Milliken's property. When the Developers began bringing fill dirt onto
the properties in approximately August 2001, Ms. Milliken immediately became concerned that the elevation of the two properties would adversely affect her property. Acting on her concerns,
Ms. Milliken immediately began to raise questions with both the Town ofAddison and the Developers about the existence of drainage plans, the elevation ofthe lots, and the potential for
damage to her property ifthese issues were not properly addressed. The Town of Addison and the Developers told Ms. PLA[NTfFF PAT 􀁍􀁔􀁌􀁌􀁉􀁋􀁅􀁾􀀧􀁓􀀠RESPONSE: TO QEFENDANT TOWN OF
ADDISON'S MOHON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 2 
Milliken that the Developers could put in as much fill as they wanted, even if it elevated the lots by twenty feet, and she was assured by the Town ofAddison and the Developers that
the development ofthe lots would create no adverse drainage affects on her property, despite the fact that there was no drainage plan in place at that time. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠5-6) 4.
Ms. Milliken continued to raise her concerns with the Town ofAddison and the Developers. After Ms. Milliken made the Town ofAddison aware that the Developers were using fill dirt, and
after Ms. Milliken repeatedly discussed her growing concerns with employees at the Town ofAddison, Ms. Milliken convinced the Town ofAddison to issue a temporary stop work order to determine
ifthe Developers would need to provide a grading map, drainage map, and engineer'S certification that any improvements would have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Finally,
the Town ofAddison determined that a drainage plan was required. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠7) 5. On November 16, 2001, the Developers allegedly sent a letter to Michael E. Murphy, P.E., Director
ofPubJic Works at the Town ofAddison, and claimed that they would 1) "grade the property for proper drainage," 2) remove two sections of fence between Ms. Milliken's property and the
Developers' properties, and 3) provide an engineer's report for the retaining wall and fill within two weeks ofNovember 16, 2001. The letter reiterated the Developers assertion that
the planned construction would not adversely impact neighboring properties. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠8) 6. Not surprisingly, the Developers did not do what they had promised in their letter,
and the Town ofAddison took no further action to remedy the situation. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠9) 7. In December 2001, Ms. Milliken experienced severe flooding on her property and in her
PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPQNSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SlJMMARY Jl!DGMEIq-PageJ 
'. home as a result of the Developers' changes to their properties and the Town ofAddison's failure to require the Developers to do anything about Ms. Milliken's legitimate concerns
about the adverse impact ofthe Developers' construction on the properties adjacent to hers. Specifically, the alteration of the adjacent properties' terrain resulted in the collection
and diversion of the natural flow of surface water from those properties onto Ms. Milliken's property, in addition to an increased velocity of runoff onto Ms. Milliken's property. (Milliken
Aff. 􀁾􀀠10) B. On December 16,2001, Ms. Milliken personally informed employees of the Town of Addison that her property had experienced flooding, just as she had been warning the Town
ofAddison and the Developers for four (4) months. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠11) 9. Had the Developers implemented a sufficient drainage plan, and had the Town ofAddison required to the Developers
to implement and follow a sufficient drainage plan, no flooding on Ms. Milliken's property would have occurred. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠13) 10. During the period from February 4, 2002 to
March IB, 2002, the Town ofAddison and Jim 􀁾#' Bowman Construction entered Ms. Milliken's property to construct a drainage system within 􀁾􀀠the existing five (5) foot easement on Ms.
Milliken's property, The Town of 􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁯􀁮􀁚􀁾􀁬􀀠􀁾􀀰􀀱􀀠req-'""M,. MH"""", pri"W 􀁾􀀢􀀭'"h""'""",,'gn.re""'" fuJly reli"'"" S;# the Town ofAddison ofany wrongdoing or liability
in connection with the construction of the drainage system on her property. Ms. Milliken did not sign the release. Ms. Milliken requested that she be shown the plans for the drainage
system, and the Town ofAddison provided the detailed plans to Ms. Milliken, which outlined how construction ofthe drainage system was to be accomplished and directed Jim Bowman Construction
how to build the PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOllON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 4 
drainage system. (Milliken Aff. , 14) 11. Ms. Milliken pennitted entrance onto her property for the construction in the easement because she was told it would alleviate the surface water
and flooding problems caused by the fill dirt brought in by the Developers and permitted by the Town of Addison. Ms. Milliken did not design the plans for the drainage system in the
easement, she did not have any right to direct the Town ofAddison or Jim Bowman Construction in their construction of the drainage system, and Ms. Milliken did not have any "hands-on"
involvement in the construction or direction ofconstruction ofthe drainage system in and around the easement. (Milliken Aff. 􀁾15-16) 12. The Town ofAddison directed Jim Bowman Construction
in its day-to-day operation on Ms. Milliken's property, and controlled the manner and method of the work done by Jim Bowman Construction. (Bowman Aff, 5-7; Milliken Aff. , 21). 13. During
the construction ofthe drainage system in and around the easement on Ms. Milliken's property, the Developers occasionally sent workers and/or motor driven machinery to Ms. Milliken's
property for the purpose of aiding in construction ofthe drainage system in and around the easement. (Milliken Aff. , 17) 14. During the Town ofAddison's, Jim Bowman Construction's,
and the Developers' work on the drainage system, Ms. Milliken's property was damaged outside the confines of the easement. Specifically, the drainage system itself intruded on the property
beyond the confines of the easement, and the Town of Addison, Bowman Construction, and the Developers damaged trees, removed valuable trees, shrubbery, and ground cover from Ms. Milliken's
property, and altered the terrain ofMs. Milliken's property. Not surprisingly, the PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TQWNQF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 5

easement "improvements" did not alleviate the problems with surface water runoff and flooding created by the Town ofAddison and the Developers, and Ms. Milliken's property has since
flooded due to the Developers' and the Town ofAddison's diversion ofthe surface water at least two more times. (Milliken Aff. , 18-20) SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE Milliken relies upon
the following summary judgment evidence appended to this Response: Exhibit 1 Order Granting Agreed Motion for Continuance and Scheduling Order Exhibit 2 Plaintiff's First Original Petition
and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief Exhibit 3 Affidavit ofPat Milliken Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Jim Bowman STANDARD OF REVIEW It is well established that
the purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims or untenable defenses; summary judgment is not intended to deprive litigants of their right to a full hearing
on the merits ofany real issue offact. Gulbenkian v. Penn, 151 Tex. 412, 416, 252 S.W.2d 929, 931 (1952). With a traditional motion for summary judgment, a sununary judgment movant must
conclusively prove all essential elements ofits claims, or show that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the other party's claims, and that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). The Court must take as true all sununary judgment evidence favorable to the non-movant, must indulge
every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant, and resolve all doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Hanvell v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 896 S. W.2d 170, 173 (Tex. 1995);
PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTTOWNQF ADDlSONIS 􀁾􀀮􀁦􀁏􀁔􀁬􀁏􀁎􀀠FOR SUMMARY J1JOGMENi-Page 6 
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S. W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985). Summary judgment should never be granted when the issues are inherently those for a jury or trial judge, as
in cases involving intent, reliance, reasonable care, uncertainty and the like. Smith v. Little, 903 S. W.2d 780, 785-786 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995), ajJrm 'd inpart and rev 'd in part
on other grounds, 943 S. W.2d 414 (Tex. 1997). Nor should summary judgment be granted when the cause ofaction depends on proofoffacts not ordinarily subject to absolute verification
or denial, such as the intent orother state ofmind ofa party. Bauer v. Jasso, 946 S. W.2d 552, 556 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, 1997, no writ); Hendricks v. Thornton, 973 S. W.2d 348 (Tex.
App.-Beaumont 1988, rev. denied); Frias v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 999 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App.-Houston (1"] 1999, rev. denied). Under Rille 166a(i), the trial court must not grant a no-evidence
motion for summary judgment ifthe respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue ofmateria1 fact on each essential element of each claim raised in the motion.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); see Reynosa v. Huff, 21 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Tex.App.-SanAntonio 2000, no pet.). The non-movant has the burden ofcoming forward with more than a scintilla ofevidence
to raise a factual issue on each element essential to its case. Id. The Town ofAddison bears the burden ofproving its entitlementto summaryjudgment as a matter oflaw. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d
at 548. A summary judgment for a defendant disposing ofthe entire case is proper only if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not succeed upon any theory pleaded. Interstate Fire
Ins. Co. v. First Tape, Inc., 817 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tex.App.-Houston (lSI Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Golden Harvest Company, Inc. v. City ofDallas, 942 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.App.-Tyler
1997). PLAlflnlFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDfSQf'\i'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMJl,;'IT -Page 7 
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES The Court Should Not Consider the Town of Addison's Motion for Summary Judgment Because it Failed to Timely File the Motion. The Town of Addison was required
to file any motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion at least 30 days before trial. (See Exhibit I, page 2). Trial was scheduled for April 12, 2004. Therefore, Town of
Addison's Motion for Summary Judgment should have been filed on or before March 13,2004. Town ofAddison's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and served on March 15, 2004. Accordingly,
the Motion for Summary Judgment was not timely filed, and the Court should not consider the motion for any purposes and deny the motion in its entirety. Evidence Exists for Each Element
of Plaintiff's Negligence Claim, and the Town of Addison is Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity on Plaintiff's Negligence Claim Against It. Plaintiff has alleged that the Town of Addison
is liable for negligence in damaging her property while using a motorized vehicle to install andlor modifY an existing drainage system. The Town of Addison has argued in its motion for
summary judgment that it is entitled to sovereign immunity from Ms. Milliken's negligence claim, that there was no statutory waiver ofits immunity because no employee of the Town of
Addison operated a motor-driven vehicle which resulted in damages to her, that no liability ofan independent contractor can be imputed to it, that Plaintiff has not established a causal
nexus between her damages and operation of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment, and, finally, that there is no evidence ofany of the elements ofPlaintiff' s negligence claim
against the Town of Addison. While the Town ofAddison ignores that the need for a modification was only due to the fact that the Town of Addison approved the Developer Defendants' use
of fill dirt in the properties PLAINTIFfi' PAT MILLIKEN'S REspONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JL"DGMENT -Page B 
adjacent to Ms. Milliken's property, despite Ms. Milliken's concerns regarding the adverse consequences to her property. The Town ofAddison and its agents and employees were negligent
in the construction ofthe drainage system in the easement on her property, further diversion ofsurface drainage, and destruction oftrees, shrubs and groundcover, which caused damages
to Ms. Milliken. The elements of a negligence cause of action are (1) duty, (2) breach ofthat duty, and (3) damages proximately cased by the breach ofthat duty. Doe v. Boys Club ofGreater
Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex. 1995). The elements of proximate cause are cause in fact and foreseeability. Travis v. City ofMesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex. 1992). The test
for cause in fact is whether the negligent "act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about injury," without which the harm would not have occurred. Doe, 907 S.W.2d at 477
(quoting Prudential Ins. Co. v. Jefferson, 896 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Tex. 1995». Addison first argues in its motion for summary judgment that, as a governmental unit, it is immune from negligence
suits under the doctrine ofsovereign irnmunity. Specifically, it claims that the Texas Tort Claims Act § 101.001 (3)(B) provides that it is irnmune from liability for damages resulting
from the flooding. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE § 10LOOl (3)(B). (Interestingly, the Town ofAddison does not address the other damages claimed by Ms. Milliken). Waiver of Immunity
As a governmental entity, the Town of Addison is generally immune from liability for negligence claims, except where the Legislature has explicitly waived such immunity. Dallas County
Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1998). Sovereign immunity is waived and a governmental unit is liable for property damage caused by an employee
acting within the scope ofhis employment if the damage arises from the operation ofa PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEfENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page
9 
, motor vehicle or motor driven equipment and the employee otherwise would be liable to the claimant under Texas law. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.021(1). The Town of Addison's
governmental immunity in this case was waived. The summary judgment evidence shows that the Town of Addison is liable for property damage proximately caused by negligence of an employee
acting within the scope of employment for the Town of Addison because the property damage arises from the operation or use ofa motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment and the
employee would be personally liable to the claimant under Texas law. More precisely, the Town of Addison designed specific plans for the drainage system, and provided those detailed
plans and the method in which to implementthe plans to its own employees and to Jim Bowman Construction. (Bowman 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠5; Milliken Aff. 􀁾􀀠14) While the Town of Addison argues
first that none ofits employees drove the motor driven equipment and, second, that Jim Bowman Construction was an independent contractor and thus, any actions of Bowman Construction
employees cannot be imputed to the Town of Addison, the summary judgment evidence shows otherwise. Employee The Act defines an "employee" as a person, including an officer oragent, who,
bycompetent authority, is in the paid service of a government unit. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.001(2); Rodriguez v. Dept. ofMental Health, 942 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
1997, no writ). Independent contractors and others who perform tasks the details of which the governmental unit does not have the legal right to control are excluded. Thus, the statutory
definition requires both control and paid employment. While employers are responsible for the negligence oftheir employees under the theory of PLAfNTlFFPAT MILLIKE!\,'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTTON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 10 
vicarious liability, the general rule is that an employer is not liable for the acts or omissions ofits independent contractors. See Abalos v. Oil Dev. Co., 544 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.
1976); American Nat 'I Ins. Co. v. Denke, 128 Tex. 229, 95 S.W.2d 370, 373 (Comm. App. 1936). "Independent contractor" has been defined as "any person who, in the pursuit of an independent
business, undertakes to do a specific piece of work for another person, using his own means and methods, without submitting himself to their control in respect to all its details." Home
Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Veliz, 695 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Pitchfork Land & Cattle Co. v. King, 162 Tex. 331, 346 S.W.2d598 (1961».
Whether one is an independent contractor is a question of law when there is no dispute as to the controlling facts and only one reasonable conclusion can be inferred. Wackenhut Corp.
v. Perez, 865 S.W.2d 86, 89 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); Sherard v. Smith, 778 778 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). However, when there are
disputed factual issues, and more than one reasonable conclusion can be inferred from the facts, a fact issue exists, and determination ofwhether a party was in independent contractor
is an issue for the fact finder to determine. The Texas Supreme Court has recently restated its long-standing test for determining whether a worker is an employee rather than an independent
contractor: whether the employer has the right to control the progress, details, and methods of operations of the work. Limestone Products Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308,
312 (Tex. 2002) (citing Thompson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 789 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex. 1990); Farrell v. Greater Houston Transp. Co., 908 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995,
writ denied». An employer controls not merely the end sought to be accomplished, but also the means and details orits accomplishment. McNamara, 71 S.W.3dat312 (citing Thompson, 789 S.W.2dat
278; Darensburgv. Tobey, 887 S.W.2d 84, 88 (Tex. PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO pEFENDANT TOWN' OF 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁬􀁓􀁏􀁾􀀻􀁓􀀠􀁍􀁑􀁉􀁉􀁏􀁾􀀠FOR SUMMARY JllDGMENI -Page 11 
Civ, App,-Dallas 1994, writ denied); Travelers Ins. Co. v, Ray, 262 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1953, writ rei'd)). The right to control is measured by considering: (1)
the independent nature ofthe worker's business; (2) the worker's obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials to perfonn the job; (3) the worker's right to control
the progress of the work except about final results; (4) the time for which the worker is employed; and (5) the method of payment, whether by unit of time or by the job. McNamara, 71
S.W.3d at 312 (citing Pitchfork Land & Cattle Co. v. King, 162 Tex. 331, 346 S.W.2d 598, 603 (Tex. 1961); Farrell, 908 S.W.2d at 3; see also Thompson, 789 S.W.2d at 279; United States
Fid. & Guar. Co, v, Goodson, 568 S,W.2d 443, 447 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1978, writ rei'd n.r.e.». The summary judgment evidence shows that there is a genuine disputed issue of fact
regarding whether the person operating the motor-driven vehicle or equipment was an "employee" of the Town of Addison, The Town of Addison claims that Jim Bowman Construction was an
independent contractor; the summary judgment evidence indicates otherwise: The Town ofAddison maintained control over how Jim Bowman Construction endeavored to construct the drainage
system and drainage inlets on Plaintiff's property. (Bowman 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠5-7) The Town ofAddison designed the plans for the drainage system to be constructed on Plaintiff's property.
(Bowman 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠5) The Town of Addison was far more involved than simply hiring a third-party to accomplish the work. (Bowman 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠5-7) The summary judgment evidence shows
that Jim Bowman and its employees submitted PLAI!'I'TIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION fOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 12 
themselves to the direction ofthe Town ofAddison during construction ofthe drainage system on Plaintiffs property. (Bowman Aff.'1l 5-8) Additionally, the motor-driven vehicles used in
the constmction of the drainage system were operated by employees (whether they were full-time Addison employees or Jim Bowman Construction employees) of the Town of Addison under the
statutory and common law definitions ofemployee and by virtue ofthe fact that they are excluded as independent contractors. (Bowman Aff.'1l5-8) It is unclear from the summary judgment
evidence whether the Town of Addison supplied all or some of the other tools and equipment for the constmction ofthe drainage system on Plaintiff's property. The summary judgment evidence
creates a fact issue about whether the Town of Addison exercised sufficient control over the details and method of construction ofthe drainage system on Plaintiff's property to prevent
the Court from determining at this stage that Jim Bowman Constmction was, as a matter oflaw, an independent contractor. Thus, the Town ofAddison has not established as a matter of law
that none of its employees operated the motor-driven vehicle which caused damage to Ms. Milliken's property. Therefore, to the extent that the Town ofAddison argues that its immunity
was not waived because none ofits employees operated the motor-driven equipment that damaged the property, that argument is, at this point, a disputed factual issue precluding summary
judgment. Nexus Between Damages and Operation ofMotor-Driven Vehicle or Motor-Driven Equipment The Town ofAddison damaged Property through the operation ofmotor driven equipment. Addison's
motion fails to address the allegation that it was negligent in causing damage to Plaintiffs property, and specifically attempts to blur the distinction between damages from the first
flooding and the damages caused by the Town of Addison and its constmction crews' negligence on Ms. pLAINTIFF PAT 􀁾􀁕􀁌􀁌􀁬􀁋􀁅􀁎􀀧􀁓􀀠RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTtON
FOR SUMMARY .HJpGMENT -Page 13 
Milliken's property. Moreover, the Town of Addison incredibly claims that "Plaintiff's alleged damages [are] from flooding that occurred prior to the installation of the drainage system,"
see Motion at p. 10, and wholly fails to address Ms. Milliken's other damages claims. Milliken clearly pleaded the following: The Town ofAddison, in collaboration with the Developer
Defendants, installed a drainage system that intruded upon Ms. Milliken's property beyond the easement owned by the Town of Addison. The Town of Addison ... also damaged and/or removed
valuable trees, shrubbery and ground cover and altered the terrain of Ms. Milliken's parcel while installing the drainage inlet. The installation ofthe inlet has not completely alleviated
the unlawful diversion of water onto Ms. Milliken's property from the adjoining parcel. Indeed, rain events continue to result in the flooding of Ms. Milliken's property causing irreparable
damages. The alterations perfonned bythe Town and Defendant Developers have now pennanently altered the drainage patterns ofPlaintifi's land, and have created pooling and erosion. (See
Original Petition, 􀁾􀁾􀀠15 -16.) Clearly, Ms. Milliken suffered additional damages beyond damages from the flooding caused by the diversion of snrface water, a claim which the Town
of Addison has ignored. Those damages include damage to trees, removal of trees shrubbery and groundcover, and alteration ofthe terrain ofher property, as well as exceeding the boundaries
ofthe easement. (Milliken 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠18-20,22-24) As the Town ofAddison has not addressed these particular damages claim of Ms. Milliken in its motion, it is not entitled to snrnmary
judgment on Ms. Milliken's claims against it for damage to her property caused in the construction of the drainage system. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 591
(Tex. 1993). Moreover, with respect to the damages claims regarding flooding, Ms. Milliken'S property has subsequently flooded on at least two other occasions after construction ofthe
drainage system on her property. (Milliken 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠12) The drainage system was allegedly designed to alleviate the concern offlooding, but instead it led to more flooding. (Milliken
Aff.􀁾􀀠12). The Town ofAddison PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTIOWN OF ADDlSQ"i'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 14 
negligently used motor-driven equipment and vehicles to construct the drainagesystem on Ms. Milliken's property and alter the terrain on her property, which further exacerbated the stuface water diversion issues related to her property and led to the additional
incidents offlooding that occurred ,subsequent to the construction ofthe drainage system on Ms. Milliken's property. (Milliken Aff., 12, 18) Through the use of motor driven equipment,
the Town of Addison ripped out trees and damaged other trees which are now sick and dying from the injuries. Therefore with respect to the Town ofAddison's claim that it is entitled
to summary judgment because there is no evidence ofa nexus between Ms. Milliken's damages and use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor driven equipment, the Court should deny the Town's
motion for summary judgment. Evidence ofEach Element of a Negligence Claim against the Town of Addison Exists. As stated earlier, the elements ofa negligence cause ofaction are (I) duty,
(2) breach ofthat duty, and (3) damages proximately cased by the breach ofthat duty. Doe v. Boys Club ofGreater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex. 1995). The statutes of this state
and the constitution of this state establish that the State and its governmental units have a duty to not damage or otherwise encumber or take the property ofprivate citizens. (See Texas
Water Code § 11.086 and Texas Constitution, Art. I, Section 17). The Town of Addison cannot in good conscience argue that it did not have a duty to not cause damage to Ms. Milliken's
property. Breach ofthe duty has been shown in two ways: first, the Town ofAddison issued building pennits to the Developers without requiring a drainage plan, and allowed the builders
to bring in fill dirt and did not require that the builders remove the fill dirt. The negligent manner in which the building pennits were issued, the negligent manner in which the Town
ignored Ms. Milliken's pLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 15 
legitimate concerns, and the negligent manner in which the Town ofAddison failed to require the Developers to remove the fill dirt until an adequate drainage plan could be designed and
implemented establishes more than a scintilla of evidence that the Town ofAddison breached its duty to not cause damage to Plaintiff's property. While outrageous and irresponsible, for
these actions, the Town ofAddison may be immune. However, the summary judgment evidence establishes that the Town breached its duty to not cause damage to Ms. Milliken's property when
it and its employee contractors damaged her property by damaging and removing trees, building the drainage system outside ofthe easement, removed shrubbery, and altered the terrain ofher
property. All ofthese actions show breach ofthe Town's duty to not damage Ms. Milliken's property. Ms. Milliken has provided more than ample evidence regarding her damages and the fact
that those damages were proximately caused by the Town. Furthermore, to the extent that the Town Town of Addison challenges on no-evidence grounds Plaintiff s negligence claim against
it, Plaintiff has already established in this response more than a scintilla ofevidence ofeach element ofher claim. Therefore, the Town ofAddison is not entitled to sununary judgment
on Plaintiff's negligence claims under either a traditional sununary judgment standard or a no-evidence standard. Evidence Exists for Each Element of Plaintiff's Trespass Claim Against
the Town of Addison. A trespass to real property is committed when a person enters another's land without consent. Wardv. N.E. Tex. Farmers Co-op Elevator, 909 S.W.2d 143, 150 (Tex.
App.-Texarkana 1995, writ denied). The entry need not be made in person but may be made by causing or permitting a thing to PLAINTIFF PAT M[LLIKEN'S RF_liPONSETO DEFENDANTIQWNOF ADDISON'S
MOTION F'OR$UMMARY JPpGMENT-Page 16 
cross the boundary of a property. City ofKeller v. Wilson, 86 S.W.3d 693, 714 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002)(citing Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp., 162 Tex. 26,344 S.W.2d 411, 416 (1961);
Glade v. Dietert, 156 Tex. 382,295 S.W.2d 642,645 (1956); City ofArlington v. City ofFort Worth, 873 S.W.2d 765,769 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ dism'd w.o.j.». The Town ofAddison
developed the plans for placement ofthe drainage system, and hired a contractor to construct the drainage system according to its plans. (Bowman Aff. 3-7) Ms. Milliken gave permission
for the Town ofAddison to construct the drainage system in the easement, but did not give permission or assent to construction ofany part ofthe drainage system or inlet outside ofthe
easement. (Milliken 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠15-16) One of the drainage inlets is located wholly outside of the easement on Plaintiff' s property, causing a trespass. (Milliken Aff.􀁾􀀠18, 21, 23)
A second drainage inlet is partially outside the easement, causing a trespass. (Milliken 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾23) The Town ofAddison intended for the drainage inlets to be located where they were
placed, the Town ofAddison hired contractors to build the inlets, and the inlets were located by the contractors where the Town of Addison planned for them to be placed. Therefore, the
Town of Addison entered Ms Milliken's land without consent by causing or permitting the drainage inlets to cross the boundary ofher property (and outside ofthe easement), resulting in
a trespass to her real property. Furthermore, to the extent that the Town of Addison challenges on no-evidence grounds Plaintiff's trespass claim it, Plaintiffhas already established
in this response more than a scintilla of evidence ofeach element ofher claim. Accordingly, the Town ofAddison has not shown that, as a matter oflaw, it is entitled to summary judgment
on Ms. Milliken's trespass claim. PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE: TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 11 
Evidence Exists for Each Element ofPlaintifPs Claim of Unlawful Diversion of Water Against the Town of Addison. To prevail on a claim under TEXAS WATER CODE § 11.086, Ms. Milliken must
prove a diversion or impoundment ofthe natural flow ofsurface water which caused damage to her property. Kraftv. Langford, 565 S.W.2d 223, 229 (Tex. 1978). The Town ofAddison argues
that Plaintiff did not articulate any specific action undertaken by it that caused the diversion ofwater from the Developer Defendants' property to the property of Plaintiff. What the
Town does not address is Plaintiff's claims that the Town issued buildingperrnits to the Developers that permitted the Developers' activities, and failed to prohibit the Developers from
causing a diversion ofthe natural flow ofthe surface water after Ms. Milliken warned the Town ofAddison that the Developers were using fill dirt and that the Developers' actions would
result in diversion ofthe surface waters from the Developers property to her property. The Town permitted the Developers' actions, and thus is also liable, as are the Developers, for
diverting the natural flow ofthe surface water onto Ms. Milliken's property. Moreover, the Town of Addison also designed the drainage system on Plaintiff's property and hired a contractor
to build the drainage system on Ms. Milliken's property. (Milliken Aff., 1418; Bowman Aff., 3-7) The alterations to the existing drainage system resulted in a change ofthe terrain ofMs.
Milliken's property, which in tum diverted the natural flow ofthe surface water on her own property and surrounding properties into the middle ofher yard, where it previously had not
been. (Milliken Aff., 18, 22, 24). The Town ofAddison argues that the Water Code cannot be read to impose liability upon a third-party for fuilure to act to prevent diversion ofsurface
water. Plaintiff does not seek to do this. PLAINT'FF PAT MJLLiKEN'S R£SPONSE TO DEFENDAJ\{I TOWN OF ADDtSON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Psite 18 
There is simple summary judgment evidence indicating that the Town ofAddison took direct actions that resulted in the diversion ofsurface water onto Ms. Milliken's property. Addison
is hardly a third-party. Furthermore, to the extent that the Town of Addison challenges on no-evidence grounds Plaintiff's unlawful diversion ofsurface water claim against it, Plaintiff
has already established in this response more than a scintilla ofevidence ofeach element ofher claim. Accordingly, the Town of Addison has not shown that, as a matter of law, it is entitled
to summary judgment on Ms. Milliken's unlawful diversion ofwater claim. Evidence Exists for Each Element of Plaintiff's Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property Claim. Article I,
Section 17 ofthe Texas Constitution forbids the State or any State agency from taking, damaging, or destroying a person's property for public use without payment of adequate compensation.
TEX. CONST. Art. I, § 17; Texas Workforce Commission v. Midfirst Bank, 40 S.W.3d 690,696 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001). To establish a violation ofthis portion ofthe State Constitution, Ms.
Milliken must prove that (I) the Town ofAddison intentionally performed certain acts, (2) that resulted in a taking of her property, (3) for public use. Texas Workforce Commission v.
Midfirst Bank, 40 S.W.3d 690, 696 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001) (citing Green Int'/, Inc. v. State, 877 S.W.2d 428,434 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, writ dism' d». "Article I, Section 17 is itself
a waiver ofsovereign immunity from both suit and liability." Texas Workforce Commission v. Midfirst Bank, 40 S. W.3d 690, 697 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001) (citing Steele v. City ofHouston,
603 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex. 1980». Texas law defines "taking, damage, or destruction" as (I) actual physical appropriation or PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFEI'iDANIIQWN OF ADDISON'S
MOTION fOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 19 
invasion ofthe property, or (2) unreasonable interference with the landowner's right to use and enjoy her property. Allen v. City o/Texas City, 775 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. App.-Houston
[1st Dist.], 1989). Other courts for years have found "public use" when private land was used for the diversion ofsurface water, Soule v. Galveston County, 246 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston
1951, writ refd, and when plaintiffs' property was flooded as a result ofa drainage project, City 0/Perryton v. Huston, 454 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1970, writ refd). The Town
ofAddison argues that Plaintiff has only alleged a negligence claim, and thus there is no intentional act, and sovereigu immunity attaches. This argument is flawed, as Article I, Section
17 is itselfa waiver ofsovereigu immunity. Therefore, the Town ofAddison is not immune from this claim. The Town of Addison intentionally issued the building permits to the Developers,
intentionally did not stop the developers from using fill dirt, and it intentionally designed the drainage system and intentionally designed and built the drainage system, which was
constructed in accordance with the plans but was still outside the easement on Plaintiffs property; Defendant's claim that it did not engage in an intentional act leading to a taking
of Ms. Milliken's property without compensation ignores reality and ample summary judgment evidence. Besides the physical location of the drainage inlets outside of the easement, Defendant
Town of Addison has taken a defacto easement across Plaintiffs yard, where the drainage water was graded to go. Moreover, the Town of Addison's argument that Plaintiff cannot establish
any act of Defendant that proximately caused her damages is, likewise, controverted by the summary judgment evidence. Had the Town of Addison not designed a new drainage system for the
easement on Plaintiffs property, and had the Town ofAddison not hired contractors to construct the drainage PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPQNSE TO DEFENDAi'!"T TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION
FOR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page2!] 
system, and had the Town of Addison assured that the drainage system remained within that easement, Plaintiff's property would not have been taken by installation of at least a portion
ofthe drainage inlets outside the confines ofthe easement. (Milliken Aff., 10, 12, 18,22-24) The Town ofAddison's design ofthe system and its hiring ofthe contractors to build the drainage
system to its specifications proximately caused the taking of the property outside of the easement. It was foreseeable that ifthe Town ofAddison deviated from the confines ofthe easement
in any manner, Plaintiff's property would be "taken." Additionally, because the drainage system benefited and continues to benefit the public, the taking was for public use. (Milliken
Aff., 25) Moreover, portions of Plaintiff's property were removed, such as trees, groundcover and shrubbery, for the benefit of the public. The Town ofAddison argues that Plaintiff consented
to construction ofthe inlet. This is a misstatement. Plaintiff consented to construction ofthe drainage system in the existing easement. (Milliken Aft:, 15) Plaintiff did not consent
to construction ofthe drainage inlet outside ofthe easement. (Milliken Aff., 15) Defendant's argument that Plaintiff allowed Jim Bowman Construction onto her property has no bearing
whatsoever on whether Plaintiff consented to ataking ofher property (outside ofthe easement) for public use. Defendant has produced no evidence that the drainage inlets are entirely
within the confmes of the easement, despite its protestations to the contrary. There is sufficient summary judgment evidence to show that the inlets are located outside of the easement
and that other portions ofMs. Milliken's property were taken for public use. Defendant Town ofAddison does not even attempt to address the defucto easement caused by the regarding of
Plaintiffs yard, and the channeling of drainage water from the adjacent properties into that easement. At the very least, there is a fact issue PLAll\'TfFF PAT ,!(LLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO
DEfENDANT TOWN OF ADDISON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Pa.ge 11 
created, and therefore summary judgment is inappropriate on this basis. Furthennore, to the extent that the Town of Addison challenges on no-evidence grounds Plaintiff's unconstimtional
takings claim against it, Plaintiff has already established inthis response more than a scintilla ofevidence ofeach element ofher claim. Accordingly, the Town ofAddison has not shown
that, as a matter of law, it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Milliken's unconstimtional takings claim. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Pat Milliken respectfully
prays that Town ofAddison's motion for summary judgment be denied in its entirety, and that the Court grant Ms. Milliken such other and further reliefto which she may show herselfjustly
entitled. Respectfully submitted, LO 􀁂􀁙􀀺􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀽ROMAS H. KEEN State BarNo. 11163300 ELIZABETI! P. ARDANOWSKI State Bar No. 00793275 4100 Thanksgiving Tower
1601 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214.954.4135 Facsimile: 214.953.1332 􀁁􀁔􀁔􀁏􀁒􀁎􀁅􀁙􀁙􀁓􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁾􀁐􀁁􀁔􀁍􀁉􀁔􀁌􀁌􀁕􀁋􀁅􀁎􀀠PLAINTIFF PAT MfLLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
TOWN OF AomSQN'S MOTION FOR SUM\fARV JUDGMENT -Page 11 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TIlls is to certifY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing instrument has been served via facsimile transmission and certified mail, return receipt requested
to the persons listed below on this 2nd day ofApril 2004, pursuant to the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Michael J. McKIeroy, Jr. VIA FACSIMILE (214) 706-0921 MARIs & LANIER, P.C. 1450
Meadow Park Blvd., LB 702 10440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 James W. Jennings, ill VIA FACSIMILE (214) 954-9541 BELLINGER & DEWOLFE, LLP 10,000 North Central Expressway,
Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75231 ZachMayer VIA FACSIMILE (972) 934-9200 FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO, L.L.P. One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 S:\TIIK.\Clients\MUliken,
Pat\Pieadings\Response to MSJ.O Ldnc PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF ADDlSON1S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -Page 23 
CAUSE NO. 02·47IS·F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRlCT COURT Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, WILLIAJv[ LONG, PRESTON HOMES, INC. and JON B. COLEMAt'l,
Defendants. § § § § § I16th JUDICIAL DISTRlCT § § § § § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER On the __ day ofAugust, 2003, came on
for hearing the Agreed Motion for Continuance filed by Plaintiff Pat Milliken ("Plaintiff') and Defendants Town of Addison ("Addison"), The Preston Group Designers and Builders ("Preston
Group"), William Long ("Long"), Preston Homes, Inc. ("Preston Homes") and John B. Coleman ("Coleman")(collectively"Defendants")(plaintiffand Defendant collectively the "Parties"). Upon
consideration ofthe Parties motion, the papers on file with this court and arguments ofcounsel, this court is ofthe opinion that the Parties' motion should be GRANTED as follows: IT
IS ORDERED, ADWDGED and DECREED that the trial currently scheduled in the 􀁾􀁢􀁯􀁶􀁥􀀮􀁳􀁴􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁤and -numbered cause for December 8,2003 is hereby stricken from the trial docket and
the trial ofthis matter shaH be rescheduled for the 􀁾day of nDt4,J. .' 2004. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADWDGED and DECREED that the following deadlines shall be applicable to this matter:
Deadline to amend pleadings asserting new causes of action or defenses v.ithout leave of ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER PAGE I 
• ......... .. • IJ TI II, 􀀲􀀱􀁾􀀠706 092l AUG·i' 0311:50A\O,4t:1 V, J als .' court: 120 days prior to trial. Deadline to lIll1elld aU other pleadings without leave of court: 30 days
prior to trial. Deadline to file dispositive motions: .30 days prior to trial. Deadline 10 file 􀁭􀁯􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠to ClI:Clllde or limit 􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁴testimony: 30 days prior to trial
Deadline to flleaU other motions: .30 days prinr to trial. Deadline to complete di$covery: 30 day. prior to trial. Deadline to compl=te mediation,: 30 dayt prior to'trial. SIGNED this
__day ofAugust, 2003. JUDGE PRESIDING Thomas H. Kec:n Attorney fot Plaintiff' Zach T. Mayer Attorney for Defendants . PTe$ton Group Designers and Builders, PrenonHomes, Inc., William
Long and Jon B. Coleman 􀁍􀁩􀁾􀁢􀁡􀁣􀁬􀁾􀁊􀁾􀀮􀁍􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀁚􀀱􀀠Attorney for e!endant Town of Addison ORDER C'A.AN11NG AGR no MOTION FOR PAGElS;gNTINUANCE AND SCHEDULING OBDJR

court: 120 days prior to trial. Deadline 10 amend all other pleadings withoulleave ofcourt: 30 days prior to trial. Deadline 10 file dispositive motions: 30 days prior t() trial. Deadline
to file motions to exclude or limit expert testimony: 30 days prior to trial. Deadline to file all other motions: 30 days prior to tria!. Deadline to complete discovery: 30 days prior
to trial. Deadline 10 complete mediation: 30 days prior to trial. SIGNED this 190#-day ofAugust, 2003. }-..-"'" Robert H. Frost ruDGE PRESIDING AGREED AS TO SUBSL-lliCE AND fORM: Thomas
H. Keen Attorney for Plaintiff Zach T. Mayer Attorney for Defendants Preston Group Designers and Builders, Preston Homes, Inc., William Long and Jon B. Coleman Michael J. M roy, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant Town ofAddison ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION FOR PAGE 2CONTINUANCE AND 􀁓􀁃􀁈􀁅􀁄􀁕􀁕􀁾􀁇ORDER 
,88/12/.'2883 18: 28 97293497 ' SENT 9\1, 214 706 􀀰􀀹􀁾􀁩􀀠􀁁􀁕􀁇􀂷􀁩􀀱􀀮􀀰􀁾􀀠.:52AM; PAGE ala co1Jrt: 1%0 days prior to trial. DellClline to amend ..1I other pleadings without ieave
ofcourt: 30 days prior to trill. Deadline to file dispositive motions: 30 day. prior to trial. Deadline to ale motion. to c:xclude or limit expert TC$Iimony: 30 day. prior to trial.
Deadline to file &11 other monons: 30 dllYs prior to trial. Deadline to complete discovery: 30 days prioT to triaL Deadline to complete mediation: 30 days prior to trial. SIGNED tbis
__day ofAugust, 2003. JUDGE PRF.SIOING AGREED AS TO StlBSTA."N'CE AND FORM: Thomas H. Keen Attorney for Plaintiff ZICh T. Mayer Altomc:y for Def;ndanu PraIOI1 Grollp Designers and Builders,
Preston Homes, inc., William LOll! alld Jon B. Colemllll 􀁾􀀠--d/-r--􀁾􀁁􀁾􀀠Micbael 􀁾􀀠Attorney for 􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁭􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀠 .Town of A.ddison 􀁲􀁾􀁴.. ---..... ; 601.0&fu0mi........d."P<i
ORDER GRANTINC AGREED MOTION lOR CONTINUANce AND 5C!:!EptlLINC QRpER PAGEl 
ItJ v • cOpy CAUSE NO. 􀀭􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀢􀀻􀀻􀀽􀀭􀁟􀀴􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀱􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁷􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀱􀀶􀁾􀁾􀀠i ':;'" ..... , .. ..,a.:.I.,d C: U 􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀠'thHl'• ;'./f ... PAT MILLIKEN, § IN TIIE DISTRICT CO OF
§ ..Plaintiff, § § ;1-'v. .vs. § § TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON GROUP § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, WILLIAM § LONG, PRESTON HOMES, INC., JON B. § COLEMAN, § § Defendants.
§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Pat Milliken ("Milliken") files her First Original
Petition complaining of Defendants TO"ID of Addison, The Preston Group Designers and Builders, William Long, Preston Homes, Inc., and Jon B. Coleman ("Defendants") and states as follows:
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN I. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190, discovery is intended to be conducted under Discovery Control Plan Level 2. II. PARTIES 2. Ms. Milliken is
an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICA nON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INlliNCTIYE RELIEF Page I of 11 425094vl 
3. Defendant Town of Addison is a municipality in Texas and may be served with process by serving the secretary, Carmen Moran, at 5350 Belt Line Road, Town of Addison, Dallas COlmty,
Texas 75001. 4. Defendant The Preston Group Designers and Builders is a Texas corporation whose principal place of business and horne office is 2301 Ohio Drive, Plano, Texas 750933927,
and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Warren C. Lyon, at 5600 West Lovers Lane, Suite 228, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75205 .. 5. Defendant
William Long is an individual who is a resident of Texas and may be served with process at his usual place of business, 5652 Gleneagles, Plano, Collin County, Texas' 75093. 6. Defendant
Preston Homes, Inc. is a Texas corporation whose principal place of business and home office is 4573 Bentley Drive, Plano, Texas 75093-7150, and may be served with process by serving
its registered agent for service of process, William S. Banowsky, at 200 Crescent Court, Suite Suite 1030, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75201. 7. Defendant Jon B. Coleman is an individual
who is a resident ofTexas and may be served with process at his usual place of business, 3801 W. Spring Creek Parkway, #1712, Plano, Collin County, Texas 75023. m. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they have done business in and have sufficient contacts with Texas and are amenable to service by a Texas court. The Court has
jurisdiction over the controversy because Ms. Milliken's damages are within the PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICA nON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-Page 2 of II 425094vl 
) . Jurisdictional limits of the Court. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Dallas
County, Texas. Additionally, the parcel of property damaged by Defendants is located in the Town of Addison, Dallas County, Texas. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. Ms. Milliken's residence
is located at 14905 Lake Forest Drive, Town of Addison, Dallas County, Texas. Her home is located on a 􀁬􀁾􀀠acre wooded parcel consisting of two lots. Besides her residence, her property
is improved with, among other things, a pooL 10. On an adjacent parcel (previously one lot, but now subdivided into two lots) located south of Ms. Milliken's residence, Defendants The
Preston Group Designers and Builders, Preston Homes, Inc. and Messrs. Long and Coleman (collectively the "Developer Defendants") began constructing homes. In developing the adjacent
property, the Developer Defendants' activities included, but are not limited to, removing natural vegetation, grading, substantially elevating the parcel by hauling in dirt, installing
cement decks and driveways, and modi:fYing the parcel's natural water drainage. II. The development of the adjacent parcel is reducing the permeability of the land and increasing the
volume and velocity ofthe surface water runoff. 12. When Developer Defendants began bringing in fill dirt, in approximately August of 200 1, Plaintiff began to raise questions about
the drainage, the elevation of the lots, and the potential damage to her property. She was informed by the Town that the Developer Defendants PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND
APPLlCA TION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Page 3 of 11 -I25094vl 
could put in as much fill as they wanted, even if they elevated the lot by twenty feet, and that the development ofthese lots would have no adverse drainage effects on her property.
13. Beginning on or about December 16,2001, Ms. Milliken's home and parcel were flooded as a result of the Developer Defendants' development activities. Specifically, the Developer Defendants'
alteration of the adjacent property's terrain resulted in the collection and diversion of the natural flow of surface water onto Ms. Milliken's property, in addition to increasing the
velocity of runoff onto Plaintiff's property. The floodwaters intruded into her home, damaging or destroying both improvements and personal property, her pool, and is causing erosion.
14. As a result of these floodwaters, Ms. Milliken sustained irreparable damages in an amount in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Court. 15. Subsequent to the first
flooding incident, the Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer Defendants, encroached upon Ms. Milliken's property to install a drainage inlet. Although the Town of Addison's
Director of Public Works promised to install the inlet within the existing five foot drainage easement on Ms. Milliken's property, the Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer
Defendants, installed a drainage system that intruded upon Ms. Milliken's property beyond the easement owned by the Town of Addison. The Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer
Defendants, also damaged and/or removed valuable trees, shrubbery and ground cover and altered the terrain of Ms. Milliken's parcel while installing the drainage inlet. The installation
of the inlet has not completely alleviated the unlawful diversion of water onto Ms. Milliken's property from the adjoining PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -Page 4 of 11 42S094vl 
parcel. Indeed, rain events continue to result in the flooding of Ms. Milliken's property causing irreparable damages. 16. The alterations performed by the Town and Defendant Developers
have now permanently altered the drainage patterns of Plaintiff's land, and have created pooling and erosion. 17. The continued development and construction of homes on the adjacent
property will further reduce the permeability of the land and increase the volume and velocity of the surface water runoff, causing additional flooding and erosion to Ms. Milliken's
property. v. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE 18. The Developer Defendants owe a duty to Ms. Milliken to develop the adjacent property in a manner that does not harm Ms. Milliken's
property. The Developer Defendants breached their duty. As a proximate cause ofthe Developer Defendants' acts or omissions, Ms. Milliken sustained and continues to sustain damages. 19.
Additionally, Defendant Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer Defendants, owed a duty to Ms. Milliken not to damage her property while installing the drainage inlet within
the existing easement on her property. But Defendant Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer Defendants, breached this duty while utilizing its motorized vehicles to modify
the existing drainage system. As a proximate cause of the Defendants' acts or omissions, Ms_ Milliken sustained and continues to sustain damages. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION
AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Page 5 of II 425094v1 
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: UNLAWFUL DIVERSION OF WATER 20. ColleCtively, the Defendants' activities have and continue to divert the natural flow of surface water in such a manner as
to overflow onto Ms. Milliken's property causing fl!?oding and erosion. The Defendants' acts and/or omissions constitute a violation of the common law of the State of Texas and section
11.086 of the Texas Water Code. Ms. Milliken suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawfuldiversion of water. 21. Additionally, Developer Defendants were consciously indifferent to an extreme risk of hann to Ms. Milliken arising from the diversion of surface water and are
therefore liable to Plaintiff for punitive and exemplary damages. VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: TRESPASS AND DAM.AGE TO REAL PROPERTY 22. The Developer Defendants' acts and/or omissions
resulted in the flooding of Ms. Milliken's property and the erosion of soil. Similarly, Defendant Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer Defendants, entered upon Ms. Milliken's
property and destroyed her valuable trees, shrubbery and ground cover and altered the terrain of her parcel. These acts and/or omissions occurred without the permission of Ms. MiIliken.
Collectively, the Defendants' acts and/or omissions caused and continue to cause damages to Ms. Milliken. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Page 6 of II 425094vl 
J VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 23. Defendant Town of Addison authorized the development of the adjacent property by the Developer Defendants without a sufficient
drainage plan. Prior to the development and construction of homes on the adjoining parcel, Ms. Milliken's property was not subject to flooding. However, subsequent to the development
and construction of the homes, water emerged and continues to emerge and cover Ms. Milliken's property causing extensive damage to Ms. Milliken's home, personal property, land, and to
the improvements thereon. 24. Additionally, Defendant Town of Addison, in collaboration with the Developer Defendants, installed a drainage inlet and modified the natural drainage characteristics
on Ms. Milliken's property outside the boundaries of an existing easement. Prior to such modifications to Ms. Milliken's property, Defendant Town of Addison failed to obtain Ms. Milliken's
pennission andJor pay for the portion of her parcel used to install the inlet. 25. Defendant TO"Wl1 of Addison's acts constitute a taking, damaging or destroying of Ms. Milliken's property
for or application to public use without adequate compensation having been made, in violation of Section 17 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Texas, as well as the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe United States Constitution. 26. Alternatively, the Town of Addison has illegally taken a portion of Ms. Milliken's property for private use, and Ms. Milliken
has been damaged thereby. 27. Defendant Town of Addison was afforded notice of Ms. Milliken's claim in compliance with state law. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -Page 7 of 11 425094vl 
IX. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 28. The diversion and overflow of surface water is causing irreparable damage to Ms. Milliken by the flooding and erosion of her home
and land which is unique in character, which damage will increase with the development and construction of homes on the adjacent property. As the development and construction of the
homes occur, the permeability of the land will be reduced and the overflow of surface water will be increased, which will result in greater flooding and erosion to Ms. Milliken's home
and property. Ms. Milliken has no adequate remedy at law for the damages suffered, which are ongoing and which 􀁖􀁜􀁾􀁉􀀱􀀠increase in the future. 29. Ms. Milliken seeks a temporary
restraining order against Defendants, a temporary injunction and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from: (a) Diverting the natural flow of surface water onto
the property of Ms. Milliken in any manner including, but not limited to the alteration of the terrain ofthe adjacent property by development ofthe property; and (b) Changing or manipulating
the grade of the property, erecting buildings or continuing to erect buildings or other improvements on the adjacent property. 30. The application for temporary restraining order is
supported by the Affidavits of Pat Milliken and Gary M. Pettit, which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and are incorporated herein for all purposes. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGIN AL
PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -PageS of II 425094vl 1 
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Ms. Milliken prays: (1) The Court issue an ex parte temporary restraining order restraining Defendants and all persons acting in privity or in concert
with them from: (a) Diverting the natural flow of surface water onto the property of Ms. Milliken in any manner including, but not limited to the alteration of the terrain of the adjacent
property by developing the property; and (b) Changing or manipulating the grade of the property, erecting buildings or continuing to erect buildings or other improvements on the adjacent
property. (2) After final hearing, render permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and all persons acting in privity or in concert with them from: (a) Diverting the natural flow of
surface water onto the property of Ms. Milliken in any manner including, but not limited to the alteration of the terrain of the adjacent property by developing the property; and (b)
Erecting buildings or continuing to erect buildings on the adjacent property. (3) Issue a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to restore the trees, landscaping, and shrubbery that
they removed. (4) Judgment for actual damages in excess ofthe minimal jurisdictional limits of the Court sustained by Ms. Milliken by the acts ofDefendants. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL
PETmON AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -Page 9 of II 425694vl 
J ) (5) Exemplary damages against all Defendants. (6) Costs ofcourt. (7) Thomas Keen State Bar No. 11163300 Clayton E. Bailey State Bar No. 00796151 Linda M. Dedman State Bar No. 24007098
BAKER & MQKENZIE 2300 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-3000 Facsimile: (214) 978-3099 ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN CERTIFICATE OF
CONFERENCE The undersigned certifies that on the 24th day ofMay, 2002, I spoke with counsel for the Town ofAddison and they have no position on the Te orary Restraining Order since it
is not sought against the Town, and to the best of my kno e ge, the Developer Defendants are not represented by counseL \ Thomas PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IN.RJNCT(VE RELIEF -Page 10 of 11 425094v! 
CAUSENO. ______ PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § TO\VN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON GROUP § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, W1LLIAM § LONG, PRESTON
HOMES, INC., JON B. § COLEMAN, § § Defendants. § __JUDICIAL DISTRICT AFFIDATIT OF PAT MILLIKEN Before me, the undersigned authority, persona!ly appeared Pat Milliken, the Plaintiff in
the above captioned case who, after being by me duly sworn deposed and said: 1. "My name is Pat Milliken. I am over the age of twenty-one (21), and am otherwise competent to make this
Affidavit. This Affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge, and the facts contained herein are true and correct. 2. "I reside at 14905 Lake Forest Drive in the Town of Addison, Dallas
County, Texas. I have lived there with my family for over twenty (20) years. 3. "In the latter part of 2001, it became apparent to me that the Developer Defendants were bringing in a
large amount of fill dirt and depositing it on the two lots adjacent to my home. I was extremely concerned about the run-off and drainage from those lots onto my property, because it
appeared that the lots were being raised quite a bit higher than their natural elevation .. It looked to me like the lots were being raised anywhere from 4 to 6 feet above the natural
elevation along the line where the immediately adjacent lot adjoins mine. While I raised those concerns to the Town of Addison, I was told that nothing could be done. 4. "In December
of2001, when the construction ofhomes on the two parcels was well under way, run-off from the two lots was diverted onto my property, and my home was flooded. The flooding damaged the
furniture, carpet, electric equipment, CDs, and a big screen television, all of which were on the first floor of my house. In addition, my pool was flooded, and a great deal of dirt
and other debris clogged the filtration system. 424511vl 
5. "Since December, my house has flooded a second time, with similar damages. In addition to the flooding that intrudes into the house, my yard has been eroded from the run-off, and
attempts by the Town of Addison and the home developers to remedy the situation have altered the grade and slope of my backyard, and has been inadequate to keep my house from flooding.
Run-off continues to deposit dirt and other debris from the sidewalks, driveway, back patio, and sometimes inside my home. During heavy rains, the runoff continues to threaten my home
and my property. 6. "It is obvious to me from the grade change installed by the developers, and by observing the rain pouring over the wall erected by the developers into my yard, that
this run-off comes directly from the two lots adjacent to my home. This kind of flooding never occurred before the activity of the Developer Defendants as set forth in the foregoing
petition. 7. "I have read the statement of facts recited in the petition, and they are true and correct." FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETIi NOT. Pat Milliken I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE
ME on this day of May 2002. 􀁨􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠State of Texas STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § 1)".",4Acknowledged by Pat Milliken before me, this 􀁾􀁡􀁹of May, 2002. (seal below) WENDt
JOYCE MARTIN Notary Public. State: of Texas 􀁾􀁊􀀡􀀮􀁾My CommIssion Expires State of TexasMarch 16. 2006 424511vl 
CAUSE NO . -. PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRlCT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § 􀁾􀀠§ § TOWN OF ADDISON, TIffi PRESTON GROUP § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DESIGNERS AND BlTILDERS, WILLIAM § LONG, PRESTON
HOMES, INC., JON B. § COLEMAN, § § Defendants. § __JUDICIAL DISTRlCT AFFIDAVlT OF GARY M. PETTIT Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Gary M. Pettit, P.E., who,
after being by me duly sworn, deposed and said: 1. "My name is Gary M. Pettit. I am over the age of twenty-one (21), and I am otherwise competent to make this Affidavit. The facts herein
are based upon my personal knowledge, and my opinion as a drainage expert, and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. "I am a professional engineer, licensed
in the State ofTexas and ten other states in the United States. I hold a bachelor ofscience in civil engineering from Texas Tech University, a master of science in civil engineering
(water resources option), from Texas Tech University, and have completed numerous seminars, workshops, and short courses on hydrology, hydraulics, sedimentology, and storm water management.
I have been a practicing consulting engineer since 1978, including the past 15 years as co-owner and president of Nationwide Water Resource Services, Inc. in Dallas, Texas. 3. "1 personally
inspected the Plaintiff's property located at 14905 Lake Forest Drive in the Town of Addison on May 6, 2002. I have also viewed the adjacent parcels about which the Plaintiff complains
in the foregoing petition. I have also reviewed documents purporting to be drainage plans submitted by some of the Defendants to the Town of Addison, presumably in conjunction with their
development ofthe sites adjacent to Ms. Milliken's property. /::, L[ 10('-(4 􀁾____----__----__________􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁲􀀠. 4. n61hile a complete drainage study of the total drainage
area has not been made 􀁬􀁊􀀧􀁾􀁲􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁡􀀭􀁶􀀭􀁡􀀢􀀧􀁩􀁬􀁡􀁢􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁯􀀭􀁭􀀭􀁥􀀬􀀠it is clear from observations of the subject property t t the constructiol! of //./_/.1" . , e addItIon
0 , an chon' ents on 􀁾􀀭􀀼􀁲􀀻􀀯􀁴􀁮􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀠immediately to the south of Ms. Milliken's property have significantly altered the natural floW ofsurface waters from the Developer Defendants'
property onto the Plaintiff's property. In my opinion, the diversion of water violates Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code, because the diversion and alteration of the natural drainage
characteristics of the Developer Defendants' I PLAINTIFF'SAFFIDA VIT OF GARY M. PETIIT, P.E. Page 1 on 424521vl EX:&.BIT __Jt..____􀁾􀀠
properties have caused, and unless corrected, will continue to cause, flooding on Ms. Milliken's property. In reviewing the photographs of the flooded portions of Ms. Milliken's home,
it is clear that Defendants' diversion of water has caused damage. If the Defendants are allowed to continue their construction activities, the damages to Ms. MiUiken are likely to continue.
5. "Although there has been a new storm water inlet placed near the western 0.1 boundary line of Developer Defendants' property, just to the south of Ms. Milliken's 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁾􀁾A 1
have serious reservations as to whether this system will control a sufficient rate and volume of i;J-W" • storm water runoff to alleviate the flooding of Ms. Milliken's property, and
it is apparent 􀁴􀁨􀁡􀁴􀁾􀀠not all of the water diverted onto Ms. Milliken's property has come from the area where the storm water inlet is located. Based on my observations, it appears
that a portion of the runoff from the adjacent lot has flowed over the retaining wall, directly directly onto 􀁍􀁾Milliken's property, at a point quite some distance from the storm water
inlet(jJow mocA.􀁾􀀠) 6. Based upon my current knowledge, observations, and review of docwnents that have been made available to me, it does not appear that an adequate storm water drainage
study has been performed for the area and appropriate measures taken to ensure the protection of Ms. Milliken's property and residence from altered drainage associated with the Defendents'
construction activities." FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. UNDAWAUACE MY COMMISSION EXPlRES Septsmber 14.2002 􀁾􀀲􀁌􀁤􀀯􀁾 􀁾Public, in and for the State ofTexas STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY
OF DALLAS § Acknowledged by Pat Milliken before me, this __day ofMay, 2002. (seal below) Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas AFFIDAvrr OF GARY M. PETTIT. P.E. Page 2 on 424521vl
􀁑􀁾􀁾􀁓􀀯􀁄􀁄􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲􀁕􀀺􀁸􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀩􀀠hew VYIA.le.k. 􀀡􀁖􀁾􀀠flu. D􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀭􀁴􀁪􀀠t>'1"'>h-'M 􀁾􀁾􀁾{f>. Does 􀀱􀁾􀀠􀁾V! ow mUc.J>--􀁾􀁉􀁁􀁊􀀠
CAUSE NO. 02-4715-F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § § I 16TH JUDI CIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF ADDISON, THE PRESTON § GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG,
PRESTON HOMES, § INC., AND JON B. COLEMAN § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned
authority, on this day personally appeared Pat Milliken, who is known to me, and after first being duly sworn upon her oath deposed and stated as follows: 1. "My name is Pat Milliken.
I am over 18 years ofage and I have never been convicted ofa felony. The statements contained herein are all true and correct and are based upon my personal knowledge as set forth herein.
2. "I am the Plaintiff in this case. I own and have lived at the home located at 14905 Lake Forest Drive, Addison, Texas 75254 (the "House") for over twenty (20) years. I have lived
continuously in the House ever since my former husband and I purchased it. My home is located on I and Yz acre wooded parcel consisting oftwo lots (the "Property"). In addition to the
home, I have a pool located on the Property. AFFIDAV1T OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page 1 
3. "During 2001, on a property located adjacent to and to the south of mine (which was previously one lot, but is now subdivided into two lots), Defendants The Preston Group Designers
and Builders, Preston Homes, Inc., and Messrs. Long and Coleman (the "Developers") began constructing homes. Those two lots were originally one larger lot. Drainage from the Property
previously sheet flowed naturally over my property towards the creek to the north of my house. 4. 1 learned that the Town of Addison initially issued the building pemtits to the Developers
without requiring any sort of grading map, drainage map, or engineer's certification that the construction of any improvements on the two lost would not have a negative impact on adjacent
properties. 5. "I saw that the Developers were bringing in fill dirt to the properties in approximately August 2001. 1 was immediately concerned about drainage because the elevations
ofthe two lots were being raised much higher than mine, and I was afraid that the new elevations ofthe two lots would cause flooding on my property. 6. "I immediately began to raise
questions with both the Town ofAddison and the Developers about the existence ofdrainage plans, the elevation ofthe lots, and the potential for damage to my property. The Town ofAddison
and the Developers ignored my concerns and told me that they (the Developers) could put in as much fill dirt as they wanted, even if it meant that the lots would be raised by twenty-five
feet. The Town of Addison and the Developers also assured me that the development ofthe lots would not create any adverse drainage affects on my property, despite the fact that there
was no drainage plan in place at that time. 7. "As construction continued, I continued to express my concerns to the Town ofAddison and the Developers. At some point prior to December
2001, the Town ofAddison issued a temporary stop work order, in what I assume was a response to my growing concerns and the Town of AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page-l 
Addison's knowledge that the fill dirt being brought in by the Developers might indeed cause a problem. It is my understanding that the purpose, in part, ofthe stop work order was to
determine if the Developers would need to provide a grading map, storm drainage map, regular drainage map, and engineer's certification that any improvements would have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties, including mine. Finally, the Town of Addison determined that a drainage plan was required. 8. "On November.l6, 2001, the Developers sent a letter to Michael
E. Murphy, P .E., Director of Public Works at the Town ofAddison, and claimed that they would I) "grade the property for proper drainage," 2) remove two sections of fence between my
property and the Developers' properties, and 3) provide an engineer:s report for the retaining wall and fill within two weeks ofNovember 16, 200I. The letter reiterated the Developers'
assume that the plarmed construction would not adversely impact neighboring properties. I was given a copy ofthe letter by someone with the Town ofAddison. 9. "Based on my personal observations
and conversations with employees of the Town of Addison, I learned that the Developers did not do what they had promised in their letter, and the Town of Addison took ):10 further action
to remedy the situation. 10. "In December 2001, I experienced severe flooding on my property and in my home. Based on my observations ofthe flow ofthe surface water off ofthe Developers'
property onto mine, it was clear to me that the flooding of my property and home was directly related to the Developers' changes to their properties and the Town ofAddison's having issued
the building permits in the first place without requiring a drainage plan prior to issuance of the building permits. Specifically, the alteration ofthe adjacent properties' elevation
and terrain resulted in the collection and diversion of the previous natural flow ofsurface water from the Developers' properties onto my property, and it AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF FA.T
MILLIKEN -Page. 3 
caused an increase in the volume and speed ofthe surface water runoff onto my property. 11. "On December 16, 2001, I personally informed employees at the Town ofAddison that my property
and home had experienced flooding, just as I had feared and been trying to avoid for four months. 12. "My home and property flooded a second time in January 2002, the patio flooded again
in April, 2003, and my home flood and again on March 4, 2004. 13. "Had the Developers implemented a sufficient drainage plan, and had the Town ofAddison required to the Developers to
control the surface drainage prior to issuing the building permits to the Developers, no flooding ofmy home or property would have occurred. 14. "During the period from February 4,2002
to March 18, 2002, the Town of Addison, Jim Bowman Construction, and the Developers continuously entered my property to construct a drainage system within the existing five (5) foot
easement on the west side of my property. The Town of Addison requested that I sign a release fully fully relieving the Town ofAddison ofany wrongdoing or liability in connection with
the construction ofthe drainage system on my property prior to the time that construction began. I refused to sign the release. I requested that I be shown the plans for the work on
my property, and I was told that there were no plans and that the workers knew whatto do without plans. At some point, the Town ofAddison provided somewhat more detailed plans to me,
which outlined how construction ofthe drainage system was to be accomplished and directed how the drainage system was to be built. 15. "Ipermitted entrance onto my property for construction
in the easement because I was told it would alleviate the surface water and flooding problems caused by the Developers and the Town of Addison. I did not give anyone permission to place
improvements on any ofmy property that was not a part of the easement (other than some general regarding, and resodding), nor did I give AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page: 4

( permission to come on my property at other times. 16. "I did not design the plans for the drainage system in the easement, I did not have any right to direct the Town of Addison or
Jim Bowman Construction in their construction of the drainage system, and I did not have any "hands-on" involvement in the construction or direction of construction ofthe drainage system
in and around the easement. The only time I asserted any control was when I insisted that a earth dam located outside ofthe easement and constructed by the Town of Addison be removed
from my property. 17. "During the construction of the drainage system in the easement and on my property, I observed the Developers occasionally send workers and/or motorized machinery
to my property to aid in construction of the drainage system in the easement and on my property. From my observations, Town ofAddison employees, Jim Bowman Construction employees and
employees of the Developers took part in construction ofthe drainage system on my property. 18. "During the Town ofAddison'S, Jim Bowman Construction's, and the Developers' work on my
property, my property was damaged, both inside and outside the confines ofthe easement. The drainage system itself intruded on the property beyond the confines ofthe easement, and the
Town of Addison, Jim Bowman Construction, and the Developers damaged trees and removed several valuable trees, shrubbery, and ground cover from my property. They also altered the terrain
ofmy property. The easement "improvements" did not alleviate the problems with surface water runoff and ·flooding created by the Town ofAddison and the Developers, and my property has
since again flooded due to the Developers' and the Town ofAddison's diversion ofthe surface water at least two more times, since the attempt to alienate the problem was made. 19. "I
am seeking damages for numerous things, some ofwhich include damage to my property and home as a result ofthe Town ofAddison's having using a motorized vehicle to install and/or AFFIDAVIT
OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page 5 
modify the existing drainage system on my property. 20. "I have read the affidavits submitted by the Town ofAddison in its Motion for Summary Judgment, and 1 dispute some ofthe statements
made in those affidavits. For instance, 1 personally observed Town of Addison employees involved in the construction of the improvement on my property, and 1 personally observed that
the use of motor-driven vehicles caused damage to my property, such as the removal and damaging oftrees, shrubbery and groundcover (both inside and outside the easement) from my property.
21. "It was my personal observation that the Town ofAddison was controlling the progress and details of the work on my property. I observed the Town ofAddison directing its employees,
and Jim Bowman Contractors' employees in the work being done on my property while they were constructing the drainage system and inlets both inside and outside ofthe easement. 23. ''Fb:mnw
observations, the Town ofAddison did not merely hire a contractor to construct the drainage system and 􀁬􀁾􀁶􀁥􀀠JiriJ. Bowman Construction alone to build it. It was my observation that
the Town of Addison was actively involved in a fairly continuous manner in constructing the drainage system. 22. "The Town ofAddison in collaboration with the Developer Defendants installed
a drainage system on my property that permanently intruded upon my own property beyond the easement. The Town ofAddison damaged and removed valuable trees, shrubbery and ground cover
and altered the terraln ofmy property while installing the drainage system and inlets. The installation ofthe inlets has not completely alleviated the diversion of surfuce water onto
my property from the adjoining properties. In fact, heavy rain continues to result in the flooding ofmy property and home causing irreparable damages. The alterations performed by the
Town ofAddison and the Developers have permanently altered the drainage patterns ofmy property and have created pooling and erosion on my property that did not exist prior to August
200 L L AFFIDAylT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page 6 
23. "The entirety ofone drainage inlet and part ofa second drainage inlet is located outside of the five-foot easement on my property, both ofwhich occurred without my pennission. 24.
"Moreover, the Town of Addison is responsible for the design and construction of the drainage system on my property, and they hired a contractor to assist in building the drainage system
on my property. The alterations to the existing drainage system resulted in a change ofthe terrain of my property, a change which I have personally observed and for which I did not give
pennission. The change ofthe terrain ofmy property in tum diverted the natural flow ofthe surface water on my own property and surrounding properties into portions ofmy yard where it
previously had not been. The change resulted in a definite channel from the south and southwest comer of my property directly towards my house. I am suing the Town ofAddison not only
because ofthe flooding ofmy house, but because they took a portion ofmy property by pennanently directing drainage. 25. "The drainage system is part of a system that includes the drainage
of surface waters from other properties in the area, which benefits the public and is used by the public. 26. "I consented to construction of the drainage system in the existing easement.
I did not consent to construction of any portion of the drainage system or a drainage inlet outside of the easement." AFfIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -PJlge 1 
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on April J..., 2004, to certit'y which witness my hand and seal ofoffice. 􀁾..􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠VICKI LIPPE LANE 􀀨􀀮􀀣􀀬􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠NOTARY PUBLIC J STATE OF
TEXAS 􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾of fj)MY Comm. Expires 10-19·2006 S:\THK\Clients\Miiliken. Pat\Pleadings\Affidavit ofPat Miitiken.doc AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PAT MILLIKEN -Page 8 
0<1/02/2004 16: 16 􀀹􀀷􀀲􀁾􀀠}447 J It4 BOWt4AN' . I-t'""K. 􀁣􀀭􀁾􀀠c;,JOlGl"+ I.e:, • .l.1rn ' CAUSE NO. Ol·471S-F PAT MlLLIKEN, § IN 'IRE DISTRlCT COURT g Plalntlff, § § v. § § 116m
IL'DI CIAL DrsTlUCT TOWN OF ADDISON, THE! PRESTON § OROUP DESIGNBRS AND BUll..DERS. § WILTJAM LONG. PRESTON HOMES. § INC., AND JON B. COLEMAN § § 􀁄􀁾􀁴􀁉􀀮􀀠§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS APllDAVIT
OF JIMBOWM4N STATE OF TEXAS f § COUNTY OFCU,ltJ § BEFORE ME, tho \Uld.enl!anec1 authority, on this daypert!cnaIlyappeared Jim Bowman, who il known to me, and I'l.fter first be\ni duly
rwom Ilpan bet ollih deposed aDd atAu:d u fbUows: 1. "My IllImO is Jim BOwmIIl. I am over 18 )'t!4r8 ofage and I have never been convicted of a fiIlollY. Tho 5ta1omontlillOlltll.!ned
􀁢􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁮are aU true and COlHllt lII1el are based upon my personal knowledge 1\1 set forth heniliI. 2. '1 am the owner lind Otntral MIlIlAgI!!' ofJim Bowmm Collllnwlion. t have been
tho owner orthiI btWl\IIIlS fur twenty (20) yoart. I have a degree In eM! ena;lneerlPg fi'cm the Un.lvmity of Texu fit Arl!nsron, wlUchI nlCtlived in 1972. 3. "OuringF8bruarysndMarch2002. the TOWll ofAddisonbized Jim BOWlUIII1Conmuc:donto 
JIM BOWMAN' PAGE 03 l:OllIIl:rtwt improvements to II draJnaie &}'Stem In􀁬􀁗􀀮􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁡residence In the ToWJ\ ofAddison. That Nai4e.w:O WlIII loc&ted at 14905 Lake FOl'l'5t Drive, Addison,
Texu 75254. It WtI8 my llIIdCl'lllllldinithat 'tho resldenoe and property were owned by Pat Mllllbm· 4. "From COllVllt'lation.s at'tho best"nlnz ofthe projectthat I hadwith emplO}'ftlll
ofths TaWIl of AddiIon, it was clear to me that 􀁾situation was politioally ohqed amons t1m ToWII ofAdliiIlOn, the pc!rIOIlI d.velopill.g the PlQplll'lyadjI!OeIrt to II!ldto 1hc !outh
of'Ma. Mllll.kIm'lI propmt}', and. Ms. MUllkcn. Th.crcfal'tl, I detcnninl:d that I would be very cs.reM to !:nlnll'!! that I and Jim Bowman COll5!rQction fuUo"",d the illB!rucIiolll
of the ToWJ\ of' Addbon to the letter and .let the Town of AddlJon diIect 11m BoWIllllll Construction', wo:'k on the project on Ma. Millikon's property. 5. "During t1m cow:aeofthe project
onMIl. MlllikCIn'. property, Jln\Bowman Const:uctlonused plalla des!jMd by the Town ofAddbon to cOll.!ltructlon tho 􀁾I)'stmn and inlctIJ. Jim BoWllllUl ColWlUction did not deaign the
plana uaedln the project. Whilt: the work wu qolng, the TOW/l of Addison. on !Ill almolt daily bw, inspogted llIld approved the work done by Jim Bowman ConatnlOtion and iIlve me tmd
my employeeJ c1ilwtIon on the 􀁭􀁾In whioh to IlOCOmplishoftbe wo!1c. As my employer onthl.J project, the Town ofAddison was more Involved In tho day to day aecompiilhmmt the ptoJect
on MI. MiI1iken'l property tbm normal for my projCOli, probably beClllWl ofthe polltlcal impUcations. 6. "l allowed 'tho Town of Addition to fl(ert IlOntrol over the progress of Jim
Bowman CoIlstructlQII.'S work on the project beclllUle of the politioalllllt\u:e of the situation. I Ihcrefbre detemliwKl that 11mBowman Con.struclionwmdd aUowthe Town ofAddison to e,ssentiallycontro
l in almOll evIllY respect tho dmila of how the project W1l5 accompllsbed. 􀁛􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁡􀁴dooision beuu.e I 􀁾to !naure that t/lJm:t m no problema olued by or -ultbli from lim Bowman 
04/02/2004 15:15 972(1447 JH4 BOWMAN' -' PAGE 64 Const.ru\lnou's work on tho project I did not wmt tho situation to be exacerbated, and I WlI8 <:enOCmod that Jim BO'W1ll&t 􀁾􀁯􀁮miibt
􀁾􀁥the wittofIllaVl-sult itllll)'thlngWllll done that was not lulcUy In til, p!lWlI. or If 􀁩􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁾went wrolli. 7. "Not onlywu Jim Bowman Construction ilvsn the plans for \be projlll.ltonMs.
Milliken's property by tho Town ofAddillOn, the Town ofAdd!1IOll dl!ected Jim Bowmen Conmuolion intho detuils of Iha aooompllsbment ofIha project. Tha Town ofAddison malntained oontrol
over how 11m BOWllWl CoD.ill.l.1.lCtion 􀁃􀁏􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠the chainage ayetern I!I1d clnllnaso inIoti on Ms. Milliken's propcny. 8. "ItIs my oplnlon, basedl1ponmy observatlonB onthlproperty
and II.1lIII.Y felU'S ofexpllriellllO lIS 1\ civil 􀁯􀁾!Wi u It penon involved In tile \lO.IIItrootion bUlfnegs for twenty yoars. that tho Town ofAddison wu attempting to =!>dy􀁡􀀬􀁾WBlA!rdrlll.n.ase
problem created by the perllClls developlni the property to the 50uth oiMS. MllWqm's p;ropel1Y,lIIId thd the Town ofAddison wu trying to a:ppOIlSCl Ma. Millikan and all8\iam the problllll1S
CIlUIIO by 􀁾􀁯WIlle!.' d1verdon and J:UI.I.Otr after the propel'I¥ lovell to the 1IQutb. aiM.. Milliken', were lubm.nt1ally elevated by the pe!8D11II developiIli those proportie.!,"
FuilTHER AFFIANT SAI'l'H NA.UGRT, , 
􀀰􀁾􀀯􀀰􀀲􀀯􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀴􀀠15:15 972-1447 PAGE 05.Hr'""I'\, 􀁣􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀨􀀻􀀬􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀱􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠_...... • .... ..Jlll SUBSCRlBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME an Aprl12, 2004, to celtify wbidl wilnesB
my hand and 􀁾􀁥􀁡􀀱􀀠of offl«t. VICKI lYNN HOlT Notary Public. State of TaxiS ! )(OKl (;:{ft}{lctbJ-JMy CO(fImis$iQn Expiras June 􀁏􀁾􀀮􀀠2006 Notaty Pl1blie in aM for the Slate ot
Teus 
214 706 0921 MAR·10·04 3:35PM; PAGE 2IV: Maris & Lanier A Profession.1 CUfJ'OI'alion 1450 Meadow Park Bldg., [,B 702 10440 N. Central Expressway .walker@marllJanior.com Vall.... Texas
􀀱􀁓􀀲􀁾I 214·706-0922 214·706-0921 (FAX) M3l'ch )0, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE ONLY LylU1 Chandler Development Services Dep3l'lment Town 01 Addison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Mike Murphy
Public Works Department Town ofAddison P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Rc: Pal Milliken v. City 01' Addison TML Claim No. 0200085821 File No. 607·066 Deal' Gentlemen: Allached hereto
are drafts (lfyour affidavits. Fleuse review them for accuracy and if you have no changes, 􀁰􀁬􀁾􀁡􀁳􀀢􀀠sign them before a notary and fax back to me by Friday, Marth 12,2004. We will
need to file our Molion for Summary Judgment by next Monday. Ifthere are changes that need 10 he made. please Cfl.J1 me at my direct dial, 214·706·0922, Thank you for your time and aj.tention
to this matter. Should you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate 10 call. Sincerely, alker sislant to Robert F. Maris Enclosure 
214 70B 0921 MAR·l0·04 3:3BPM; PAGE 3SEN,T BV: CAUSE NO. 02·4715·F PAT MILLIKEN, § IN THE DiSTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRlCT TOWN OF ADDISON. THE PRESTON
§ GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG. PRESTON HOMES. § INC. and JON B. COLEMAN. § § Defendan1S, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL E. MURPHY, P.E. STATEQFlEXAS § §
COUNTY 01' DALLAS § BEfORE ME, the wldersigned Notary Public, personally appeared the person known to me to Michael E. Murphy, P,E, who, upon being duly sworn, upon his oath deposed
and stated the following: I. "My Jlame 􀁩􀁾􀀠Michael E. Murphy, P.E. I am more than eighteen (18) years ofage, have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and am otherwise
competent Ie provide an affidavit. The litL1S contained within Ihis affidavitare witbin my 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀱􀀠knowledge and are true and correct. 2, "I am employed asa professional engineer
licensed by the State ofTexas. 1bave been so licensed by the Slate of Texas since 1987. I am currently employed as the Director of Public Works for the Defendallt Town of􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁵􀁮􀀠􀀨􀀢􀁄􀁾􀁦􀁥�
�􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀢􀀩􀀮􀀠Prior to being employed as the Direct ofPuhlic Works, 1was employed by Defendant as the Assistant Director ofPublic Works IlI1d lIB the AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL E. MURPHY,P,E.
PAGEl 
214 706 0921 MAR·l0·04 3:36PM; PAGE 4 City Engineer. As the Assistant Director of Public Works Bnd City Engineer,l was in charge of overseeing the engineering dllpBrtm"nl with respect
10 their conslruction projects, capital projects, sewer and waste management projects, rhave been employed as Ihl' Direclor ofPublic Works since 2000, My duties as the Director ofPublic
Works include carrying nn the dllties ofthe City Engineer and to oversee the Warer & Sanltal)' SIlWer, Streets, Traftie Control, Solid Waste, Storm Water and Animal C.ontrol Departments.
3. "I am familiar with the property owned by PlaJntiffPat Milliken (UPlaintier') located al 14905 Lake Forest Drive, Addison, Texas (the "Property"). I became aware ofcomplaints made
by Plaintiffregarding ftll dirt blling brought in by the developers ofthe properties located al 14885 and 14901 Lake Forest Drive, Addison, Texas, which are immediately to the south
ofthe Property. When the initial building permits were issued to The Presion Group Designers and Builders ("The Preston Group") for the property located al1490 1 Lake Forest Drive, Addison,
Texas and by Preston Homes. Inc. ("Preston Homes") for the property localed at 14885 Lake Forest Drive, Addison, Texas, it was determined that no additional drail1llge plans were necessary.
The Preston Group and Preston Homes, together with their representatives Defendants William Long ("Long") IIIld Jon Coleman C'Coleman"). respectively, are collectively referred 10 heroin
aq tne "Developer Defendants." However, (was not made IIware at that time that the Developer Defendants intended 10 bring in the fill dirt. Al\erobserving the site after the fiU dirt
was brought in, I was concerned that the existing drall1llge plans for the construction ofthe adjacent properties would not he sufficient. Therefore, I requested additional drainage
plans be submitted by the Developer Defendants, including a grading map and engineer's certification thaI any improvements wiil not have any negalive impact upon adjacent properties
before the Developer Defendants eould continue making AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAELJIj, MURl?HY, P.E. PAGEl 
SENT BY, 214 706 0921 MAR·l0·04 3:36PMj PAGE 5 improvements. 4. Additional drainage plans were submitted in October, 2001. True, correcl and complete copies ofthe drainage plans are
attached hereto as Exhibit "B-1," and made a part 􀁨􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁩􀁮􀀠by reference. Before approving the additional drainage plans, I notified the Developer Defendants that Defendant would
require that the Developer Defendants grade their property to direct water to the existing easement on the western boundary of the Property. Defendant further required the Developer
Defendants to obtain engineer reports approving plans for the retaining wall between the Developer Defendants' properties and the Property and any grading toward that wall. In addition
to verbally infonning the Ueveloper Defendants of Defendant's requirements, I 􀁰􀁡􀁾􀀤􀁥􀁤􀀠along my recommendations to Lynn Chandler, tbe Bui!ding Official for DefendanL LYIlll Chandlerconfirmed
Defendant's requirements in two (2) letfersto the DeveloperDefendants dated October23. 200] and November 8, 2001. True, correct and tomplete copies of the October 23, 2001 and November
8, 2001 leiters are attached \0 the Affidavit of LylUl Chandler as Exhibits "A-6." and "A-7," respectively, and made a patt herein by reference. In my opinion, based upon my observations
of the Developer Defendants' properties and the Property, my experience, education and training, had the drainage work requlred by Defendant been perfonned, no flooding of the Plaintiff's
Property would have occurred. 5. On November 16,200 I, I received a leiter from Long confirming that the Developer Defendants agrc:ed to re-grade the Property "for proper drainage."
remove two sections ofthe fence between the property immediately adjacent to the Property and the Property and provide engineer reports for the retaining wall and fill, all within two
(2) weeks. The letter conflnned that the plllllIlcd construction will nol have any negative impact on neighboring properties. A true, correct and AFJIIDAVIt Of MICHAEL E. MURPHY. P.E.
PACE 3 
IT BV: 􀁾􀀱􀀴􀀠708 0921 MAR·10·04 3:38PM; PAOlO 6 complete copy oftlw November 16,2001 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B-2," and made a part herein by reference. 6. On or about
December 17, 2001, I learned that the Plaintiffs Property had experienced flooding. lIster determined that the Developer Defendants had not performed the drainage work which had been
required by Defendant and promised by Developer Defendants prior 10 the flooding. 7. On orabout Februwy 1,2002, I conferred with Plaintiffabout constructing IIdrainage system within
the five (5) foot easement owned by Defendant on the western boundary of the Property. A true, correct and complete copy ofIIletterdated Februwy 1,2002 to Plaintiff􀁤􀁥􀁾􀀨􀀻􀁲􀁩􀁢􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠the
construction ofthe drainage system is attached hereto as Exhibit "B-3:' and made a part herein by reference. Plaintiffand Plaintiffs attorney, Tom Keen, verbally informed metbat they
consented to the construction of the drainage system within the five (5) foot easement owned by Defendant on the western boundwy ofthe Property, work being perionned. The work 􀁷􀁡􀁾to
be performed by Jim Bowman Construction. During the construction, I further informed Plaintiff that the construction would re require the removlll of two (2) trees located outside of
the five (5) foot easement and offered 10 􀁾􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁣􀁥􀀠these trees with three (3) higher quality trecs at Defendant's expense, A true, correct and complete copy of a letter dated February
19, 2002 to Plaintiff informing her of the removal ofthe trees is nttached hereto as Exhibit "B4," and made a part herein by reference. Again, Plaintiff verbally consented to the removal
of the trees. 8. By March 18, 2002, all drainage work had been completed by Jim Bowman Construction. I have reviewed the drainage system constructed by Jim Bowman Construction. The drainage
system is entirely within the five (5) foot easement owned by Defendant along the western AJIFIOAVITOF MICHAEL E. MURPHY, P.E, l'AGE4 
214 706 0921 MAR-10-04 3:37PM; PAGE 7/12SENT BY: and southern boundaries ofthe Property. 9. I am acustodian ofrecords for Defendant. Exhibits "B· I " through "B-4" are records that are
kept by Defendant in the regular course of business, and it was in tbe regular course of bwiness of Defendant for an employee or representative ofDefendant with knowledge of the act,
event, or condition. recorded to make the record or to transmit infonnation thereof to be included in sucb record; and the record was m!ide at or near the timc or reasonably soon thereafter.
E1Ihibits "B-1" through "B-4" are exact duplicates ofthe originals." FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. 􀁡􀁌􀁾􀁣􀀮􀁾􀀠MICHAEL E. MURPHY. P.E: SIGNED AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME. the undersigned
Notary Public, on the 􀁾day of March, 2004. PAGESAFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL E. MURPHY. P.E. 
214 708 0921 MAR-10-04 3:35PM; PME 1SENT BY: Maris & Lanier A l'rofessional Corporation 1450 Meadow Pm-k Bldg.• L.B 102 10440 N. Central 􀁅􀁸􀁰􀁬􀀢􀁳􀀢􀁷􀁾􀁹􀀠DallllS, Texas 75231 TELECOPIER
COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE IMMEDIATELY Date: March 10, 2004 To: Mike Mwpby Via Telecopier Number: (972]450-2837 To: Lynn Chandler Via TeJe\lopicr Number: (9721450-2837 From:
Amy 1. Walker.l.e\W1 Assistant Direct Phone Number (214) 706-0922 Dife\lt Telccopier Number (214)706.0921 Pages: Cover+1L IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL Autna at: 214-106·0932
Rc: Fne No. 601·066: Pat Milliken v, Town of Addison Message: See attached Affidavits to be executed by tbis Friday. Thanks. _ Original will follow by mail _x_ Original will NOT follow
by mail Th. informatiOB (ontained in tbis facsimile mwagc Is altoroey privileged .nd cunlidenl"" inForm»tion intended oilly for Ibe use of the individual or entity named above. If tlte
reader of Ihls m",aae is 1101 the Intended reCIpient. )'(Iu are bereby notified that that any ullalltllorized dls,emtoatloll, dlltrlblltlod Or copying of thi$ communication i8 􀀮􀁴􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁴􀀱􀁹􀀠prohi
bited. Ifyou bave received this communitalion in error. plea.elmmoolalely notify II. by telephone alth. ",umbers Iisled. Thank you. 
Maris & Lanier A Professional Corporation J450 Meadow Pork Bldg., LB 702 10440 N. Central Expr¢slway Dallas, Te.as 75231 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE IMMEDIATELY
Date: January 20, 2004 To: Mike Murphy Via Telecopier Number: 972-450-2837 From: Amy L. Walker, Legal Assistant Direct Phone Number (214) 706·0922 Direct Telecopier Number (214) 706·0921
Pages: Cover + IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PI-EASE CALL Autna at: 1·214-706·0932 Re: Pat Milliken v. Town ofAddison File No. 607-066 Message: Attached please find a copy of the
Defendant's Notice of Intention to Take Oral Deposition of Plaintiff, Pllt Milliken. The location and time are stated on the deposition notice. Ifyou need any other information, please
do nothesitnteto contact me at my direct line, 214·706·0922. Thanks. _ Original will follow by mail _x_ OrigiDlil will NOT follow by mail The: Information rOII.iocd In (bl, r..tdmlle
munge-i. Iluoraq 􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁹􀁩􀁨􀁾􀁰􀁤􀀠.q.J to»ndendtd ioform.tlon iDh:tldtd only fnr fhe IDe of tfte' ludlvidua' tit enItty namt:d above. 􀁊􀁴􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠ruder of IhiameMillf It not die Intmdtd
􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁰􀁦􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁬yuu are berrby nl)dfted that.0)' untultioril(d loIiastmlnlUofh didribucton qr t:QP)'fft, or ihia eomm tndu,fJoat. dric:dy prohilrittd. Ifyou. blve l"eCltlved thir t:lIJ1UbUDfufitUi
In error. p.CIUle hnmedi.ttly norify us by ttlfphui1f at frte rl1..J\ben Unfr). 'hnk you. 
.., J.n 07 04 08'46. 􀁆􀁥􀁥􀁓􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁨􀁓􀁨􀁡􀁲􀁰􀁖􀁩􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠912-934-9200 􀁚􀁔􀁊􀁒􀀮􀁏􀁾􀀷􀁓􀀠CAUSE NO. Ol-471S PAT MILLIKEN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§ TOWN OF ADDISION, THE PRESTON § GROUP DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, § WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, § LIIIC., JON B, COLEMAN § 1l6Ttt JUDICIAl, DISTRlCl' DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF lJ\'1.'ENTlON
TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITION 01" PLAINTIFF PAT 􀁍􀁊􀁌􀁌􀁬􀁋􀁅􀁾􀀠TO; Pat Milliken, PLAINTIF'I', by and through her attorney ofrecord. ThOOl3S H. Keen, Looper, Reed & MCClf3W, 4100 Thanksgiving
Tower, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas. Texas 75201. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thal at 16;00 '.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, and continuing thercalter from day to day until complete, 7.ACH T.
MAYER, attorney for Defendant.; will take the oral deposition of Pat MiUiken pursuant to the Texas RUles of Civil Procedure, at the offices of Defelllle counsel, Zach T, Mayer. located
at 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200, One Galleria Tower, Dallas, Texas, 75240. The deposition will be taken before a certified court reporter from Steve Gentry and Associates, Inc. and a
videc person. Said deposition, when so taken and returned accordill1l to law, will be lISed in evidence upon the trial of said cause, and you are invit.:d to attend and cross-examine
tite witness as yOIl may see proper. ..-􀁄􀁅􀁆􀁅􀁾􀀬􀁽􀀩􀁁􀁎􀁔􀁓􀀧􀀠NOTICE OF 1/\-rEtlTION TO TAKE: ORAL DEPOSITION Of l'LAINTIFF I'AT MILLIKEN .,---.... ',IS LNJS􀁓􀀯􀁾􀀠30\'d 
􀁾􀀠.1 ..... 0'; 0 .. 􀁏􀁡􀀺􀁾􀀶.. 􀁆􀁥􀁥􀁓􀁭􀁩􀁴􀁨􀁓􀁨􀁡􀁾􀁰􀁖􀁩􀁴􀁵􀁬􀁬􀁯􀀠97i!-934-9<!OO ".5 " kspectfully submiUed, F£Ji', SMITII, SUAltl' & VITULJ..O. L.L.P. Z'i\f--np Sta One Galleria
Tower 13355 Noel Road, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 934·9100 (972) 934-9200 [Fax] Al"fORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM LONG, PRESTON HOMES, INC;, THE PlillSTON GROUP DESIGNERS AND
BUILPERS, AND JOI" B. COLEMAN CERTIFICATE OF SERViCE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has beon sen'ed upon all c01J]]scl of record as indicated
below, on tlris the 􀁾day of January, 2004. Via Fax Only: Thomas H. Keen Looper, Reed &. McGraw 41 00 Thanksgiving Tower 1601 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75201 ViII Fax Onl)': Michael J.
McKelroy, Jr. Maris & Lacier. P.C. 1450 Mcadow Park Blvd., LB 702 10440 N. Central Expressway 􀁄􀁡􀁊􀁬􀁡􀁾􀀮􀀠TX 75231 􀁚􀁁􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭OUEI'IIJANTS' NO'flC(; OF INTENTION TO
TAKE ORAL DEPOSITION OF rLAINTIFF PAT 􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁌􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁆􀀮􀁎􀀠! 'AS J.N3S