TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Ruiz (494 S.W.3d 109, 2014)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by

Chief Justice VALDEZ. •

Appellants, TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V., Patricia Chapoy, and Publimax, S.A. de C.V. (the “Media Defendants”), complain in this accelerated interlocutory appeal that the trial court erred in denying their special appearance in a suit brought by appellees, Gloria de los Angeles Trevino Ruiz (aka “Gloria Trevi”), individually and on behalf of her minor child, Gabriel de Jesus Trevino, and Armando'Ismael Gomez Martinez (the “Trevi Parties”). See Tex. Civ. ' PRac. & Rem.Code AnN. § 51.014(a)(7) (West 2008); Tex.R.App. P. 28.1. Appellants contend by five issues, that the trial-, court erred by: (1) denying their special appearance; (2) finding that it had specific jurisdiction over the Media Defendants; (3) finding that it had general jurisdiction over the Media Defendants; (4) finding that exercising personal jurisdiction over the Media Defendants would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; and (5) overruling the appellants’ objections to the affidavit testimony of Francisco Peña, the affidavit and deposition testimony of Patti Sunday, the deposition testimony of Othon Frias Calderon, and the deposition testimony of Vicente Diaz. We affirm.

I. Standard op Review

Whether the trial court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a question of law. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.2002). The plaintiff bears the initial ' burden of pleading “sufficient allegations to bring a nonresident defendant within the provisions of the [Texas] long-arm statute.” Id. at 793. However, when a defendant files a special appearance, he assumes the burden of negating all bases of personal jurisdiction asserted by the plaintiff. Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex.2007); BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d. at 793; El Puerto de Liverpool, S.A. de C.V. v. Servi Mundo Llantero, S.A. de C.V, 82 S.W.3d 622, 628. (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 20Q2, pet. dism’d w.o.j.)- The trial court determines the special appearance by referring to the pleadings, any stipulations made by and between the parties, any affidavits and attachments filed by the parties, discovery, and any oral .testimony. Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a(3).

When the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law, we may review the findings of fact for legal and factual sufficiency. BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794. We review á trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 674 (citing BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794). The appellant may not challenge the trial court’s conclusions of law as factually insufficient; however, the appellate court may “review the trial court’s legal conclusions drawn from the facts to determine their correctness.”. Id.

If the trial court does not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, we must imply all facts necessary to support the judgment if those facts are supported by the evidence. BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex.1987); In re W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d 716, 717 (Tex.1984)). “When ... the trial court does not issue fact findings, we presume that the trial court resolved all factual disputes in favor of its ruling.” Glattly v. CMS Viron Corp., 177 S.W.3d 438, 445 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 805-06 (Tex.2002)). However, “we review de novo if the’underlying facts' are undisputed or otherwise established.” Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman, 16 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). Any implied findings are not conclusive and may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency if the appellate record contains the-reporter’s and clerk’s records. Id. “For legal sufficiency points, if there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no evidence challenge fails.” Id.

II. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if it is authorized by the Texas long-arm statute, see Tex. Civ. PRac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 17,042 (West 2008), which allows Texas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who are doing business in Texas. Id.; BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795, The Texas long-arm statute sets out several activities that constitute “doing business” in Texas; however, the list is not exclusive, and Texas’s long arm statute’s “broad language extends Texas courts’ personal jurisdiction ‘as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will permit.’ ” BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 (quoting U-Anchor Adver., Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex.1977)). Therefore, “the requirements of the Texas long-arm statute are satisfied if the exercise, of personal jurisdiction comports with, federal due process limitations.” CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex.1996).

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a Texas court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when (1) the nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66. S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795; see U.S. Const, amend. XIV, '§1. “The exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper when' the contacts proximately result from actions of the nonresident defendant which create a substantial connection with the forum state.” Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991).

Minimum contacts may be found when the nonresident defendant purposefully avails himself of the privileges and benefits inherent in conducting business in the forum state. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (“[A] defendant must seek some benefit, advantage or profit by ‘availing’ itself of the jurisdiction.”) (quoting Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex.2005)); Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 784 (“For half a century, the touchstone of jurisdictional due process has been ‘purposeful availment.’ ”); see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Minimum contacts with the forum state may establish either specific or general jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). There is specific jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant if the defendant purposefully directed his activities at residents of Texas and the litigation arose from or related to those contacts. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174; Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868; Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 227. In other words, there must be a substantial connection between the nonresident defendant’s contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585. The forum state has general jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant if the defendant’s contacts in the forum state are continuous and systematic. BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 796. General jurisdiction allows the forum state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant “even if the cause of action did not arise from or relate to activities conducted within the forum state.” Id.

III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION in Defamation Suits

In determining whether the nonresident defendant that is sued for defamation has had minimum contacts with the forum state, the United States Supreme Court has provided a framework for courts to follow. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1983); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1983). In Keeton, the United States Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs libel cause of action against the publisher of a magazine. Keeton, 465 U.S at 772, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The plaintiff, who was not a resident of New Hampshire, sought relief in New Hampshire because the statute of limitations had run in her home state. Id. at 773, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s “regular circulation of magazines in [New Hampshire] is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine.” Id. at 773-74, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The Court citing the lower court’s findings stated that “[t]he general course of conduct in circulating magazines throughout the states was purposefully directed at New Hampshire, and inevitably affected persons in the state.” Id. at 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The Court explained that

[s]uch regular monthly sales of thousands of magazines cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. It is, therefore, unquestionable that New Hampshire’s jurisdiction over a complaint based on those contacts would ordinarily satisfy the requirement of the Due Process Clause that a State’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant be predicated on ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the State.

Id.

The Supreme Court explained that the plaintiffs lack of contacts with the forum state did not defeat jurisdiction because we analyze the relationship among the defendant, the forum state, and the litigation. Id. at 775-76, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The Court found the plaintiffs claims that she suffered damages in multiple states relevant to the question of whether it was “fair” to compel the defendant to defend a multi-state suit in New Hampshire. Id. at 776, 104 S.Ct. 1473. However, the Supreme Court held her multi-state claims did not defeat New Hampshire’s jurisdiction over the defendant because New Hampshire had a legitimate interest in holding the defendant answerable on a claim related to the defendant’s activities of circulating its magazine in that state. Id. The Court explained that New Hampshire has a significant interest in redressing injuries that actually occur within its borders. Quoting Leeper v. Leeper, 114 N.H. 294, 298, 319 A.2d 626 (1974), the Supreme Court stated:

A state has an especial interest in exercising judicial jurisdiction over those who commit torts within its territory. This is because torts involve wrongful conduct which a state seeks to deter, and against which it attempts to afford protection, by providing that a tortfea-sor shall be liable for damages which are the proximate result of his tort.' ■

Keeton, 465 U.S. at 776, 104 S.Ct. 1473 (internal citations omitted). The Court explained that this interest “extends to libel actions brought by- nonresidents” and that New Hampshire has an interest in discouraging the deception of its citizens in a libel action. Id. The Supreme Court said, “False statements of fact harm both the subject of the falsehood and the readers of the statement” and “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” Id. (emphasis in original). • The Court determined that New Hampshire had an interest in remedying an injury that in-state libel caused within its borders to a nonresident and that “the tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated.” Id. at 776-77, 104 S.Ct. 1473.

Noting that the defendant had “chosen to enter the New Hampshire market[,]” the Court concluded that the defendant could be “charged with knowledge of its laws.” Id. at 779, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The defendant’s activities could not be regarded as continuous and systematic and were not so substantial as to support jurisdiction over a cause of action unrelated to .its activities in New Hampshire. Id. However, the defendant was “carrying on a ‘part of its general business’ in New Hampshire, and that [was] sufficient to support jurisdiction when the cause of action [arose] out of the very activity being conducted, in part, in New Hampshire.” Id. at 779-80, 104 S.Ct. 1473.

The Supreme Court recognized that in ■some situations, the plaintiffs residence may- be relevant to a minimum contacts analysis, because the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs residence may “enhance” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, especially if the plaintiffs residence is the focus of the defendant’s activities related to the suit. Id. at 780, 104 S.Ct. 1473. However, an appellate court is not required to take the plaintiffs residence into consideration when determining whether the defendant has had minimum' contacts with the forum state. Id. ■ This is because the plaintiffs lack of residence “will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of [the] defendant’s contacts.” Id: The Court concluded that when a. defendant has- “continuously” and deliberately ■ “exploited” a forum state’s.market, “it must reasonably anticipate being .haled into court there in a libel action based on the contents of its magazine.” Id. at 781, 104 S.Ct. 1473. The Court stated, “There is no unfairness in calling [a defendant] to answer for the contents of [its] publication wherever a substantial number of copies are regularly sold and distributed.” Id.

In Calder v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that California had personal jurisdiction' over an editor and writer for the National Enquirer who were based in Florida. 465 U.S. at 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482. At the time, Shirley Jones was an entertainer living and working in California, and the National Enquirer published allegedly defamatory statements about her. Id. at 788-89, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The Supreme Court found that California was the focal point of the published story and the harm was suffered in California. Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482.“ Thus, the Court stated that California had jurisdiction based on the “effects” of the defendants’ Florida conduct in California. Id. The Supreme Court explained that (1) the story concerned the California activities of a California resident, (2) the plaintiffs career was centered in California, (3) the article was drawn from California sources, and (4) the brunt of the harm was felt in California. Id. at 788-89, 104 S.Ct. 1482.

.The Calder defendants argued that they were similar to welders who had built a boiler in Florida and who had no control over where the manufacturer sold the boilers. Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The Supreme Court rejected that argument because according to the Court, the defendants were not charged merely with untargeted negligence. Id. Instead, the defendants had been charged with intentional and tortious actions expressly aimed at California. Id. The Supreme Court stated that the defendants knew that the brunt of the injury would be felt by Jones in-the state in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer had its largest circulation. Id. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the defendants must have “reasonably anticipate^] being haled into [a] court [where the plaintiff lived and worked and the publication was disseminated]” to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article. Id. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The Supreme Court reasoned that in the case of an intentional tort, such as defamation, an individual injured in California should not be required to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in Florida, knowingly cause the injury in California, Id. at 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482.

IV. The Evidence

The Trevi Parties sued appellants for defamation, libel per se, slander, defamation per se, business disparagement, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts and business relationships. The Trevi Parties claimed that appellants allegedly broadcast defamatory statements about them on their television programs. In their joint special appearance, TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Azteca”) and Chapoy asserted that they are not residents of Texas, that they have not had minimum contacts with Texas allowing jurisdiction in Texas, the trial court lacked specific and general jurisdiction over them, and jurisdiction over them would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Azteca stated that it is not registered to do business in Texas and that it is an entity that has not been formed under the laws of Texas. Az-teca and Chapoy challenged all of the bases for jurisdiction listed in the Texas long-arm statute.

Chapoy stated that she is a citizen and resident of Mexico employed by a Mexican corporation. Chapoy claimed that her “intended viewership includes primarily Mexican viewers, not viewers in Texas.” Cha-poy asserted that the evidence presented showed that she has not (1) engaged in business in Texas; (2) agreed to be subject to jurisdiction in Texas; (3) appointed an agent for service of process in Texas; (4) ever maintained a place of business in Texas; (5) owned property in Texas; (6) owed or paid any taxes to the State of Texas or any of its political subdivisions; (7) filed a lawsuit in Texas; or (8) been a party to a lawsuit other than the current action.

In its special appearance, Publimax stated that: (1) it is an entity formed-under the laws of Mexico; (2) it was not formed under Texas laws; (3) it was not registered to do business in Texas (4) it did not have employees, agents, or assets, representatives, or offices in Texas; (5) it did not engage in business in Texas; (6) it did not agree to be subjected to jurisdiction in Texas; (7) it had not appointed an agent ■for service of process in Texas; (8) it had not maintained a place of business in Texas, owned property in Texas, or owed or paid any taxes to Texas or any of its political subdivisions; (9) it had not “aim[ed] or targeted] any alleged defamatory broadcast to the State of Texas”; and (10) it had not “create[d], [written], or produce[d] any allegedly defamatory broadcast.” Publimax acknowledged that it operated “over-the-air television channels 7 and 13 in Monterrey, Mexico” but alleged that “ptirsuant to an agreement with the owner of those stations, the programming broadcast over those channels is directed at viewers in the northeast zone of Mexico not Texas.” Publimax stated that “[cjhannels 7 and 13 in Monterrey are licensed for broadcast by the Mexican government, not the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.” Publimax recognized that households in southern Texas are' capable of receiving transmission of broadcasts from channels seven and thirteen, but it claimed that it had not “engage[d] in purposeful attempts to do business in south Texas through programming targeted or directed to south Texas.” Publimax also stated that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas conferring jurisdiction to a Texas court.

Regarding general jtirisdiction, appellants stated that the Trevi Parties “acknowledge[d] that [they] do ‘not maintain a registered agent for service of process in Texas.’ ” Appellants claimed that the Tre-vi Parties’ accusation that they are “doing business in the State of Texas and [were] at all times material hereto doing business in Texas” was conclusory and did not constitute evidence of continuous and systematic contacts sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over them. Appellants alleged that the Trevi Parties failed to state which; defendant actually broadcast the television programs in Texas, which gave rise to the Trevi Parties’ causes of action. Finally, appellants claimed that even if Azteca broadcast the television programs at issue, that fact alone is not sufficient to confer general jurisdiction in Texas.

Regarding specific jurisdiction, " appellants stated that the Trevi Parties’ allegation that they had directed their activities to Texas residents was vague and the type of evidence rejected by the Texas Supreme Court. Appellants argued that even if Az-teca broadcast its programs to Texas, those broadcasts were incidental and not directed to the state of Texas. Finally, appellants asserted that vesting a Texas court with jurisdiction over them would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Azteca and Chapoy attached Othon Fri-as Calderon’s and Chapoy’s affidavits to their joint special appearance wherein Calderon stated that he is employed as an “attorney-in-fact” for Azteca and is “familiar with and [has] knowledge of [Azteca’s] business.” Calderon stated:

I have knowledge that the intention of [Azteca] in supervision, producing and conducting the television programming at issue in this lawsuit was to accurately inform in a truthful, objective and professional manner about the matters reported therein. The programs contain reporting and commentary on the legal proceedings related to Gloria Trevi and Sergio Andrade, among others, which occurred mainly in Mexico, Europe, and Brazil, and have no relationship to the State of Texas. The producers, reporters and investigators involved in the production of programs did not include or discuss any act or event taking place in the State of Texas and did not rely on any sources in the State of Texas. All of the work on the subject broadcasts was performed and conducted in Mexico.

In her affidavit, Chapoy stated that she is a resident of Mexico and has never been a resident of Texas. Chapoy said that she serves as director of entertainment for Azteca. According to Chapoy, she intends that viewers of the programs she produces consist of Mexican citizens, and she does not intend for residents of Texas to view her reports. Chapoy stated, “The report that I understand to be the subject of Plaintiffs Original Complaint [was] investigated, written and prepared by me and colleagues working in Mexico. All of my work on the subject broadcasts were performed and conducted in Mexico.” Cha-poy said that she intended to “accurately” inform her viewers about the matters reported in the broadcasts that “focused on cases and legal proceedings involving Gloria Trevi which took place in Mexico, Europe and Brazil and not in the State of Texas.” According to Chapoy, the reports “did not discuss any Texas events involving Ms. Trevi or others and did not rely on any sources in the State of Texas.”

Publimax offered the affidavit of Vicente Diaz Charles (“Diaz”). Diaz works as the controller at Publimax. Diaz denied that Publimax has engaged in any acts listed in the Texas long-arm statute. Diaz stated:

The television programming that is the subject of the Petition was not created, written or produced by Publimax. Pub-limax did not have any responsibility for or role in preparing the content of that programming and did not exercise any editorial control or decision making regarding that content. Publimax did not aim or target any alleged defamatory broadcast to the State .of Texas. The subject programming originated from a national Mexican television network which was responsible for creating the .content of the programming and which exercised editorial control over the content of the programming. Publimax operates over-the-air television Channels 7 and. 13 in Monterrey, Mexico pursuant to an agreement with the owner of those stations; however, the programming broadcast over those channels is directed at viewers, in the northeast zone of Mexico, not Texas. Channels 7 and 13 in Monterrey are licensed for broadcast by the Mexican government, not the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

Although some household's .located in south Texas may have the capability of receiving the over-the-air television signal of channels 7 and 13 in Monterrey operated by Publimax as a result of signal “spill-over”, that is the result of the over-the-air signal following the law of physics, not man-made laws as to borders and jurisdiction. Publimax has not and does not engage in purposeful attempts to do business in south Texas through programming targeted or di- ' rected to south Texas.

Appellants attached excerpts from depositions of Trevino, Calderon, Chapoy, Diaz, and Armando Ismael Gomez to their designation of deposition testimony, additional affidavits and expert witnesses in support of special appearances. To their response to appellants’, special appearances, the Tre-vi Parties attached excerpts from: (1) Diaz’s depositions taken' on November 15, 2011 and March 8 and 9, 2012 with deposition exhibits; (2) Calderon’s deposition with exhibits; (3) Chapoy’s deposition with exhibits; (3) Trevi’s deposition; (4) Laura Cantu’s deposition; and (5) Patti S. Sunday’s deposition. The Trevi Parties also offered a variety of documents, including among other things: (1) Francisco J. Peña Valdés’s affidavit; (2) Patti S. Sunday’s affidavit; (3) Trevi’s affidavit; (4) portions of TV Azteca’s 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 annual, reports; .(5) documents in a lawsuit filed by a Texas resident against Publimax and it§.employee; (6) a “Linken-dine” profile of .TV Azteca’s manager of editing, post production, and signal distribution, Omar Garza Galvan, and an invoice; (7) a printout of pages from TV Azteca Noreste’s website; (8) Rebecca Vela’s affidavit; (9) Raymond L. Thomas’s affidavit; and (10) Vanessa Villegas’s affidavit.

Both the Trevi Parties and appellants provided excerpts of Trevi’s deposition. During her deposition, Trevi testified that she lives in McAllen, Texas and is in the United States under a work visa. Trevi testified that she viewed one of the broadcasts containing the allegedly defamatory statements at her mother-in-law’s home in McAllen. Trevi claimed she sued appellants in Texas because the defamatory statements harmed her and her family economically in Texas. Trevi stated that she lost business in Texas due to the broadcasts.

Trevi stated that she did not know whether appellants “did anything in Texas to prepare” the allegedly defamatory broadcasts and did not know if the preparation of the broadcasts occurred in Mexico. Trevi agreed with appellants’ attorney that several of the alleged defamatory remarks concerned incidents that occurred in Mexico and had not occurred in Texas. She also agreed that several of the remarks concerned incidents that occurred in Brazil. Trevi stated that she did not know where the programs “aired.” Trevi could not say whether Chapoy made the allegedly defamatory statements in Mexico. Trevi explained:

Well, look, I saw it here [in Texas]. I saw it here on TV Azteca, and I do not know where this woman records her show or where the people who are being interviewed are. But they pay a lot of money to people to give interviews to defame me and they have even Said that in their own Show.

I don’t know where she is recording her show or where these people who are being interviewed are or where the reporters are when these intérviews are taking place. I khow that I saw it here in McAllen. I actually don’t watch TV Azteca, but people who saw it called me up and told me to turn to that channel to — to watch it because they were attacking me. ■ ■

I don’t want to make any assumptions. I don’t want to say “yes” or “no.” I simply saw this woman making the statements. I don’t know where she is recording her show.

Appellants’ attorney asked Trevi-to explain what she saw including the title of the program and the date that it ran. Trevi responded:

Well, in the show Ventaneando, I don’t remember the exact date. I received a call from Aunt Mapy and from my Aunt Luisa. The calls were minutes apart, I don’t remember who called first, but they called to say that they were talking about me on TV Azteca because they live here. So I changed the channel and I saw that they were advertising this series, this show that was a series saying something like ten years after my release.

And statements were being made by people with interest in that advertising. People who are interested to cause me harm, and [Pati] Chapoy was giving credibility to those statements and mak- ' ing affirmations about what was being said. There were also reporters talking about it as well. They were advertising this series of shows that were supposed to be talking about something like the dark side of my release, and they were making affirmation or supporting all these false statements about me.

These false statements and a good portion of them are right there from the beginning of the lawsuit that I personally saw myself and some from around midway into the lawsuit!

Trevi testified that her Aunt Luisa lives in McAllen “very close to [her] mom’s house.” However, Trevi did not know the address. Trevi believed that she saw the program sometime in 2009 before she filed the lawsuit.

. Trevi stated that she. does not know where Publimax’s regular place of business is located.. When asked if appellants interviewed her in Texas regarding the eom-plained-of broadcasts, Trevi replied, “No.” Trevi acknowledged that Chapoy had previously interviewed her in Mexico and that she has never met or seen Chapoy in Texas. When asked if any of appellants’ sources were interviewed in Texas, Trevi responded, “I cannot say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because I don’t have a certainty. I do not know where those statements were made by them. .I .am.not certain as to whether they were made here [in Texas] or over there [in Mexico].” In response to whether she had seen or met a representative from Publimax in Texas before her deposition, Trevi said, “Well, I — I couldn’t say because I have seen reporters and people from TV Azteca here.” Trevi stated that she had not met or seen Chapoy in Texas.

When asked if she had ever been interviewed by any employee or representative of TV Azteca in Texas, Trevi replied, “They have tried, but I have not agreed to give them an interview.” Trevi explained, “During public activities that I might be involved in or they — they have tried to intercept me at. a restaurant or when my son was bom.” When asked if she had “contact with TV Azteca in Texas,” Trevi said, “I have not accepted their coming close to me.” Appellants’ attorney asked, “Right. Which means that you never have had any contact with TV Azteca in Texas, correct?” Trevi responded, “That’s incorrect. They have approached me, putting their microphones in front of my face; and I have refused to give them an interview.” When asked to provide details of one incident where this occurred in Texas, Trevi stated, “At the hospital after my son was born. They have tried it [with] my family at my mom’s different houses, at Tony Roma’s restaurant some years ago, at the airport. On several occasions before filing this lawsuit.” Appellants’ attorney asked Trevi why she believed TV Azteca knew where she lived despite her testimony that she did not divulge that information to the public. Trevi replied, “Because as I said before, they were practically camping outside my mom’s house. And they themselves say it that way in some of the shows: ‘We are right here, right outside Gloria Trevi’s mother’ ”

When appellants’ attorney asked why Trevi brought her lawsuit in Texas, Trevi responded:

Well, I am filing this lawsuit, as you can see, because of the harm that has been caused to me. These people know, they have made the statements and these broadcasts knowing'that I live in McAl-len, and they are making the shows where they get broadcasted here in the state and they get broadcasted all over the United States. It doesn’t only harm me, but it — also my family and also my — my work.

These people very well know those shows and. those statements get broad-casted here. And I am not doing this— ■Em not filing this lawsuit because I’m angry, but it’s out of love and protection for my children. Because this doesn’t only hurt me, but. it hurts them as well. They .suffer from comments made in school.

And-independently from the harm to my work, these people and this company have‘caused fear upon me, fear for my freedom. ■ My freedom is again being threatened, and they are doubting and putting my innocence and acquittal to be judged by others.

These shows are — were seen here. I saw them here. I heard about them here while I was here in my house. I have a son who is from here, from McAl-len, and my children are here studying here in McAllen.. So that’s why I decided to get legal help here in the United States because, I believe in the justice of this country.

Appellants’ attorney objected, to Trevi’s response on the basis that it was nonre^pon-sive and asked her “You made reference to — that the Defendants allegedly know that you live in McAllen. What evidence do you have of that?” Trevi responded:

Well, I am being followed or prosecuted by them, by the reporters and their cameras. .Even when my son was born that was mentioned earlier and also . commented earlier about my husband’s problem. They are making an effort to document with their comments my husband’s problems, and they very well know and it is very clear that they know that I’m here in McAllen,' in the United States.

I am not assuming that [they know]. I know they know that I live here.

Trevi testified that while watching TV, she saw that a reporter from TV Azteca named Laura Suarez was following her and her family in Texas. Appellants’ attorney asked, “Have you ever seen Laura Suarez physically present through your own eyes in Texas? Yes or no?” Trevi said, “When I see a TV Azteca camera, I turn around. I do not face the camera. I have — -but I have been told that she has been present, both by my family and by the people who are accompanying me. So, I don’t face the camera. I don’t look at the reporter.” Trevi clarified that she did not believe she had ever personally seen Laura Suarez in Texas.

Trevi explained how she was harmed in Texas as follows:

Well, there have been issues about concerts, concerts that were being prepared, things were being prepared for the concerts; and after these comments, everything got cut off.

I have been having a real problem registering my children to a club. I want to be with them in a club here in Texas, and we have not been accepted because of all these things that were said about me.

These concerts were not only here [in McAllen], but also in other cities such as Houston, San Antonio, Dallas. Independently from the economic harm, maybe the economic issue is most important to TV Azteca, but there’s also psychological harm to my children. Emotional distress or harm to me and — and my family, among others.

[Comparing my normal activity after I retook my career, my artistic career both in Mexico and the United States, the number of concerts that — that I was having changed after this interview— rather, these shows that were broadcast-ed. Projects such as an energy drink that was stopped and other projects that had to do with perfumes and using my image. All this stopped.

I knew that we were preparing for appearances, for a tour in Texas. And it didn’t happen after the broadcast.

At his deposition, Calderon testified that TV Azteca “operates a national TV station — Mexican TV station.” When asked if TV Azteca has an ownership interest in several different companies, Calderon replied, “Yes.” However, according to Calderon those companies are not related to the operation of the national television station. Calderon agreed with the Trevi Parties’ attorney’s statement that Azteca America is a “wholly-owned subsidiary of TV Azteca” and said that Azteca America is an American company. The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked if TV Azteca owned “the channel known as Azteca 13,” and Calderon responded, “They are not the owners, but they have a license to operate from — from the Mexican government.” When asked who owns Azteca 13, Calderon said, “The owner of the station concessions is the Mexican government.” Calderon stated that TV Azteca also has a license to operate Azteca 7 and that although he did not know the number of television stations TV Azteca has a license to operate; he thought there were “several around the Mexican Republic.” The Trevi Parties’, attorney told Calderon.she understood that TV Azteca had licenses to operate over 300 television stations in, Mexico. Calderon responded that, he thought “there are less” and that all of the stations “are the property of the Mexican government.”

When asked if TV Azteca owned or operated the television station Azteca No-reste, Calderon said, “I understand that TV Azteca Noreste doesn’t exist; and about Publimax, we have no ownership.” Calderon stated that “at present” as he understood it, TV Azteca did not have any ownership interest in the name TV Azteca Noreste. When asked if TV Azteca had ever owned an interest in TV Azteca No-reste, Calderon replied, “As I understand it, and I see that it doesn’t exist, I would need to review documents from the past.”

Calderon explained that TV Azteca has an agreement with Publimax which limits where Publimax can broadcast TV Azteca’s programming to three Mexican states of Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas. Calderon stated that Publimax is the only company allowed to broadcast TV Azteca programming in those states and that Pub-limax pays TV Azteca a fee for the broadcasting rights.

Calderon testified that some of the programs that are broadcasted by Publimax on TV Azteca 7 and 18 “are produced by TV Azteca [and] are the property of TV Azteca. Others, they are bought programs from other companies from different countries.” Calderon stated that TV Azteca owned the right to the programs, “Ventaneando,” “Ojo del Huracán,” and “Vidas al Limite.”

Calderon stated that there is no agreement between TV Azteca and Publimax for Publimax to broadcast TV'Azteca’s programs in the United States of America. Calderon said, “I understand that in order to be able to broadcast in the U.S., you [are] require[d] [to have] a license or a permit from the F — FCC, which is the. telecommunications authority in the United States.” Calderon said that TV Azteca does not own any towers in the United States and “only has licenses in Mexico.” When asked, “The towers that transmit the signal from television, TV Azteca that áre located in Mexico, is that signal broadcast into the United States,” Calderon replied, “Not that I know of. I’m not a technician, neithér I know too much about technology; but there is — it’s possible, or I have heard that the signals can be — expanded ... without anybody’s control.” When asked if TV Azteca’s signal is transmitted to Texas, Calderon clarified that TV Azteca’s signals are transmitted only in Mexico but that it is possible that “due to technical issues” the signal may be transmitted to “other places.” ' „

Calderon testified that TV Azteca neither owns nor operates any television stations in the United States of America. When asked if the programs produced by TV Azteca are shown in the United States, Calderon responded, “It’s possible.” When asked if Publimax broadcasts programming from TV Azteca, Calderon replied, “Théy can.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked Calderon if that programming is broadcast in the United States through Azteca America, and Calderon stated that “TV Azteca gives license to Azteca America for certain programs in the United States.” Calderon did not know whether TV Azteca received any portion of the income from Azteca America’s programming. Calderon did not “think” that TV Azteca received any portion of the income from advertisements on Azteca America.

Calderon’s affidavit stated that “TV Az-teca operates television stations in Mexico pursuant to a concession issued by the government of ... Mexico.” According to Calderon’ affidavit, TV Azteca had never had a license to operate in the United States of America and produces programs only for audiences in Mexico. Calderon stated that “Azteca International Corporation [ (“AIC”) ] is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TV Azteca” that is organized under the laws of Delaware with its. headquarters in California. Calderon said that AIC is a separate entity from TV Azteca and that TV Aztéca has “contributed content licenses to AIC,” which “allowed AIC to broadcast certain TV Azteca-owned programs, including ‘Ventaneando,’ and to use certain intellectual property of TV Azteca in the United States.” Calderon stated that “AIC uses-this license to retransmit certain TV Azteca programming for distribution in the United States and to market itself in the United States. For instance, pursuant to the license, AIC utilizes original content from TV Azteca as ‘Ventanean-do’ in order to distribute through its affiliates in the United States, a program known as “Ventaneando America.’ ”

At his deposition, Calderon stated that to his knowledge, TV Azteca did not have any contracts with Echostar, Dish Network, or Direct TV in Texas. Calderon did not know whether TV Azteca had any contracts with Time Warner Cable in Texas. When asked, “Does TV Azteca provide any programming to the Rio Grande Valley through Time Warner Cable in Texas,” Calderon responded, “No. My understanding is that, or what I know, is that TV Azteca, as I said before, gives licenses, other content to Azteca America, or to AIC. And then what AIC does is unknown to me in relation to other — cable companies.”

Calderon clarified that “TV Azteca is the owner of [AIC], and Azteca America is a brand, which I believe is owned by [AIC].” When shown a logo of Azteca America, Calderon acknowledged that it used the same logo used by TV Azteca. Calderon affirmed- that TV Azteca owns the trademark for the logo in Mexico and “also in other countries.” Calderon thought that TV Azteca had registered the trademark for the logo in the United States. Calderon believed that TV Azteca had given AIC a license to use the logo.

The trial court examined excerpts from Chapoy’s deposition provided by appellants and excerpts provided by the Trevi Parties. Chapoy testified that she “started” with TV Azteca “in September, 19 or 20 years ago.” Chapoy stated that she had been a. director of production for TV Azteca for about a year and then took over in her current position as director of entertainment. Chapoy agreed that she “launched” Ventaneando in 1996. Chapoy created other projects for TV Azteca including among others, Alfa Dance, Corazo Grupero, El Ojo del Huracan, Historias Emgarzadas, and Vidas al Limite. Char poy did not recall which shows other than Ventaneando discussed Trevi and her husband. When asked if El Ojo del Huracan discussed Trevi, Chapoy replied, “Probably, yes.”

Chapoy agreed that Ventaneando has “been broadcast continuously by TV Azte-ca for 16 years” for five days per week. Chapoy affirmed that she had been a producer for Ventaneando in the past. Cha-poy testified that Ventaneando, Ojo del Huracan, and Vidas al Limite are broadcast in Mexico on Channel 13. Chapoy did not know whether Ventaneando is also available on Azteca America channels. Chapoy stated that she receives no compensation from Azteca America. When asked, “What is Ventaneando America,” Chapoy said, “I don’t know” and denied any involvement in that show. However, after the Trevi Parties’ attorney showed Chapoy a document marked Exhibit No. 2 for purposes of the deposition, Chapoy acknowledged that she had recently served as the host of the anniversary of Venta-neando on Azteca America.

Exhibit No. 2 is a press release from Azteca America dated May 10, 2011, entitled “Azteca America Celebrates 15 Years of the Best Entertainment News Program on Spanish-Language Television: Venta-neando.” The document states that “[tjhroughout the month of May, Azteca America will celebrate the 15-year anniversary of the best Spanish-language entertainment news program and a pioneer of the genre — Ventaneando America hosted by Pati Chapoy with her incomparable team of experts: Daniel Bisogno, Pedro Sola, Atala Sarmiento, and Jimena Perez. The press release states:

After 15 years of broadcasting in Mexico and nearly 7 years of airing, its exclusive version for Spanish-speaking viewers in this country, Ventaneando America has earned a reputation for being the first program to break celebrity news and show business gossip. “We work very hard to find the sort of information that isn’t readily rnade available in a press conference or in interviews. We investigate what is happening everywhere from . every angle, and that, is an enormous challenge,” said Chapoy.

. “For Azteca America it is an honor to celebrate Ventaneando, one of the most successful and influential programs in Mexico, the United States, and other Latin American countries, as led by the outstanding journalist, Pati Chapoy, who is an icon, in the entertainment world. Congratulations on these 15 years of continuous broadcasts and best wishes for continued success in the future; this is the, only program capable of high-impact exclusive coverage of important events and interviews of top stars,” stated Alberto Santini Lara, Vice President of Production, Programming, and Marketing for Azteca America as well as General Director of Azteca 13 and Azte-ca Novelas in Mexico.

Last week, Pati Chapoy kicked off celebrating “15 Years” of her program Ven-taneando with a spectacular remodeled set, which she dubbed her “casona” (“big house”). “I am happy to be Ventanean-do and I feel proud of what we have accomplished in the first 15 years. I feel happy to have a phenomenal team and to continue producing an entertaining program that presents clear, truthful, objective, and timely information,” added Pati Chapoy.

In fíne print the document stated the following:

About Azteca America

Azteca America is the alternative choice in broadcast television for Spanish speaking families residing in the United States. Azteca America operates in 66 markets nationwide, and can also be seen on DIRECTTV Mas Channel 441 (AZA 441) and DISH Network Channel 825. Wholly owned by Mexican broadcaster TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V., Azteca America has access to the best programming from Azteca’s three national networks, including a' library with over 200,000 hours of-original programming and news from local bureaus in 32 Mexican states. The network complements Mexican programming with an innovative line-up of shows from international producers and distributors to ensure the finest programming for Spanish-speaking viewers and unique advertising solutions for partners seeking to reach the most dynamic market in the country.

The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked Cha-poy whether the press release indicated that she had hosted the program Venta-neando America. Chapoy agreed that the press release says she hosted Ventaneando America, and Chapoy stated, “When they ask me to do a special type of — act as an advisor for something specially, I do it.” The attorney asked, “Right. So, whát is Ventaneando America,” and Chapoy said, “A promotion made by Asesores.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney stated, “And when I asked you earlier, what' is Ventaneando America, and you said you don’t know; the truth is you do know,” and Chapoy replied, “The truth is that I do a lot of promotions. I have been doing promotions for 16 years, and I don’t remember specifically any of them.” Chapoy did not know whether the Ventaneando shown on Azteca America is the same or a different program that is shown on TV Azteca in Mexico.

Chapoy acknowledged that she is “well-known” in the United States and stated that she is also “well-known” in Argentina, Brazil, Latin America, “and some other parts of the world.” When asked why she thought she had “so much recognition or fame in the United States,” Chapoy said, “Because I have been working for many years as a journalist, and I started to work about 40 or more years ago with Raul Velasco. And ever since people know me, I was his assistant. I worked for him for 25 or 30 years.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney stated that the shows that Chapoy had created and produced and in which she appears “many of those are broadcast in the United States,” Chapoy replied, “Okay. I understand — I highly understand that that’s the way it is.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked, “And not only in the United States, but Texas in particular?” Cha-poy responded, “I — I don’t know — I assure you I can — I can assure you that I am not a systems engineering [technician], so I don’t [know].... ”

Chapoy testified that she did not know that the. Trevi Parties lived in McAllen. Chapoy stated .that she did not recall ever saying that she had obtained evidence supporting her stories about the Trevi Parties from the United States, Chile, and Mexico. Chapoy denied obtaining any evidence from the United States when researching the story about the Trevi Parties.

Chapoy stated that her husband has a Merrill Lynch account in McAllen, Texas. Chapoy, however, claimed that she had no knowledge of any of the details regarding the account and 'had never contributed her money to the account. Chapoy stated that it was not a joint account and that her husband had merely “[written her] name there, that’s all.”

The Trevi Parties provided excerpts of Diaz’s deposition testimony taken on November 15, 2011. In these excerpts,-Diaz testified that Publimax has used the name of “TV Azteca Noreste” and that the name “TV Azteca Noreste” “belongs to TV Azte-ca.” Diaz explained that an agreement existed, which allowed Publimax to use the name “TV Azteca Noreste.” Diaz testified that “TV Azteca Noreste” is used to identify the northeast region of Mexico in order to identify what area Publimax and TV Azteca agreed to cover.

The Trevi Parties’ attorney showed Diaz a document marked “Exhibit No. 3” for purposes of his deposition. Exhibit No. 3 is a picture of a map purportedly taken from “Azteca Noreste’s” website with graphs and information written in Spanish. The map appears to show areas of Coahui-la, Nuevo León, “Sur de Texas,” and Ta-maulipas. There are two graphs next to the map. In one graph, the above stated regions are listed. Under the title “Sur de Texas,” the following Texas cities are listed and then identified on the map with corresponding numbers: Brownsville, Eagle Pass, Edinburg, Harlingen, Laredo, McAllen, Mission, Pharr, Port Isabel, Rio Grande, San Benito, and Zapata. The other graph lists Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Sur de Texas with columns labeled, “Personas,” “Hogares,” “Televi-dentes,” and “TV Hogares.” With a final row stating “Total Cobertura.” The graph shows that each region is assigned a particular number for each category listed. For example, in the category of “Perso-nas,” Nuevo Leon has 4,352,783, Tamauli-pas has 2,602,394, -Cohuila- has 2,077,627 and the “Sur de Texas” has 1, 63, 814 with the “Total Cobertura” of 10,665,618.

The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked Diaz,“[W]e see that there’s an area for Coahui-la, Nuevo Leon, South Texas, and Tamau-lipas, correct,!’ and Diaz responded, “That’s correct.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney said, “And underneath the indication of South Texas, it indicates the cities of Brownsville, Eagle Pass, Edinburg, Har-lingen, Laredo, McAllen, Mission, Pharr, Port Isabel, Rio Grande, San Benito and Zapata, correct,” Diaz replied, “It’s correct.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney stated, “And there’s an indication under South Texas that the television viewers — can you tell me what that number there says,” Diaz replied, “1,583,829.” Diaz stated that the number for Texas in the “TV Hogares” column was 576,914. The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked,- “Was there any advertisements run on the TV Azteca Noreste channels for local businesses or retailers in South Texas,” Diaz responded, “Possibly, yes.”

Diaz testified that he “thought” that Publimax had done business in Texas by buying equipment used for broadcasting. Diaz stated that he believed that Publimax had entered into contracts with persons or companies in Texas.

In excerpts from his deposition taken on March 8 and 9, 2012, provided by appellants and the Trevi Parties, Diaz reviewed some of Publimax’s “in-house documents.” Diaz described four of the documents as being Publimax employees’ requests for expenses for travel in Texas. Diaz explained that the employees’ travels occurred “[b]etween 2005 and 2009. In 2005, for example, there were none. 2006, 2007, and 2008, there were none either. So, it’s 2006 and 2007.”

Diaz reviewed a document he identified as “an invoice from Kevin Ler, for the rent of an apartment” in McAllen in “December of 2006 and January of 2007.” Diaz explained Publimax employed Ler from 2006 through 2007 and that Ler rented the apartment in McAllen “[b]ecause at that time there was a project in order to cable the signal for Publimax.” Diaz testified that Ler had been assigned to the project by Publimax and was working on a contract with “Warner,” a cable company in McAllen. According to Diaz, Ler’s project was unsuccessful and Publimax abandoned it. When asked, “Did Publimax ever enter into any sort of,written agreement" or contract with Time Warner Cable,” Diaz responded, “Not that I know of.” When asked, “And the signal that you were attempting to provide over the cable network, was it the Mexican signal,” Diaz said, “Yes.”

Diaz stated that “TV Azteca Noreste” is a “commercial name” that is not registered in Mexico. According to Diaz, “Today, [Publimax does not] use TV Azteca. They use ... Azteca Noreste.”- When asked, “And who owns the rights to the name of Azteca Noreste,” Diaz replied, “TV Azte-ca.” Diaz first claimed that there was no specific agreement regarding Publimax’s use of the name “Azteca Noreste.” However, when asked, “What allows Publimax to use the name Azteca Noreste,” Diaz responded, “A contract, a mercantile agreement.” Diaz agreed that the contract was also a licensing agreement that Publimax has with TV Azteca. Diaz explained that the contract allowed Publimax “[t]o make air time in the northern part of the Mexican [Rjepublic at certain times for Channels 7 and 13, TV Azteca [Cjhannels 7 and 13.”

Diaz agreed with the Trevi Parties’ attorney when she said, “All right.- And Exhibit No.-3 shows that there are services of the television signal to Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, South Texas, and Tamauli-pas; is that correct?” However, Diaz clarified “that in the -southern part of Texas the signal is only an air signal.” Diaz agreed that Publimax has a website for “Azteca Noreste” that shows that “there’s a signal provided to the southern part of Texas.” Diaz-claimed it was “just an accident” and said, “It’s not controlled by Pub-limax.” When asked, “But Publimax advertises that its air signal reaches the southern part of Texas, correct,” Diaz said, “By error, yes.” Diaz acknowledged that Exhibit No. 3 showed “the number of persons, homes, and televisions that are reached in the southern part of Texas.” Later during his deposition, the Trevi Parties’ attorney asked Diaz, whether the “coverage area for Publimax’s television broadcast signal [was] the same [in 2009] as it is today,” Diaz replied, “I suppose so.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked, “And in 2009, was Publimax transmitting via air signal to the southern part of Texas,” Diaz said, “As an accident, not voluntarily.”' The ■ attorney stated, “And my question is whether' or not Publimax was transmitting its signal via air, as you testified earlier, to the southern part of Texas in 2009,” and Diaz replied, “Yes, as an accident,” The attorney explained that she wanted a yes or no response, and Diaz said, ‘Yes.”

Diaz denied that Publimax had solicited advertisers from Texas, but Diaz acknowledged that Publimax has advertisers from Texas who pay for commercial air time. Diaz acknowledged that Publimax had aired commercials from entities or businesses that are located in Texas from 1994, when it entered its agreement with TV Azteca, to the present. Diaz agreed that pursuant to its contract with TV Azteca, Publimax pays TV Azteca some percentage of the advertising revenues that it receives. However, according to Diaz, the amount of the percentage is confidential.

When asked, “Are the programs Venta-neando, or Ojo de Huácan, and La Vidas al Limite broadcast on the Publimax stations,” Diaz replied, “I think, yes.” Diaz stated that “Myriam Marlene” was “the representative of the sales agéncy,” Xoana Entertainment. When asked if Marléne ever worked for Publimax, Diaz said, “As an advertising agency.” Diaz testified that Publimax and Marlene had entered a “verbal agreement” with , “the commercial director at that time .... [b]etween 2006 and 2007.” Diaz explained that Marlene “would sell advertising to be broadcasted in Matamoros and Reynosa.” When asked if she was selling advertising on behalf of Publimax, Diaz replied, “I think she was selling advertising on behalf of her agency.” Diaz agreed that the advertising that Marlene sold was to be shown on Publimax stations in Matamoros, Reynosa, and Monterrey. Diaz thought that Marlene’s advertising agency was located in McAllen. Diaz stated that Publimax did not have any agreements presently .with advertising agencies in Texas.

Diaz reviewed documents marked ‘ as “Exhibit No. 4” for purposes of his deposition. Diaz identified the documents as being “Emails from Myriam Marlene,- directed to the people who were in charge of programming, the advertisers and the different stations.” Diaz acknowledged that “Marlene identified] herself underneath her name as TV Azteca Texas,” However, Diaz did not know what “TV Azteca Texas” is. When asked if Publimax ever allowed Marlene to use “TV Azteca Texas in her dealings with potential advertisers,” Diaz replied, “Not that I know of.” Diaz explained that Marlene “was in charge of production for Mexican customers^ She would bring the customers, or she would include advertising for American customers.”

The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked Diaz to identify for the record deposition “Exhibit No. 5.” Diaz replied, “It’s a commercial agreement between Xoana Entertainment and Publimax, in order to be able to broadcast advertising in Reynosa and Matamoros on Channel 7 ... and 13.” Diaz read from the agreement the names of the “advertisers,” which were “Andy’s Kids Place, Bodies Under Construction, C.N.A.[,] Herbal Nutrition, C.N.A.[,] Herbal Nutrition[,] CrayonMaris Fun House— CrayonMaris Fun House, [and] Excellent Fence.” When asked if those advertisers were from Texas, Diaz said, “Possibly, yes.” Diaz clarified that he meant that he was “not too sure” whether these advertisers were from Texas. Diaz testified that the “client’s address” was not indicated and the only address in the document was Marlene’s address. However, when asked if he produced any documents to the Trevi Parties’ attorney for advertising contracts that were located in Mexico, Diaz replied, “No.” Diaz stated that he did not “think” that the above listed businesses were still “advertising with Publimax.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney asked, “You are no longer — Publimax is no longer advertising for Gonzalez Furniture.” Diaz said, “I don’t think so.” The Trevi Parties’ attorney then asked if Publimax was still providing advertising for Pueblo Tires, and Diaz responded, “No, I’m not sure.”

Diaz acknowledged that Publimax had a bank account in Laredo, Texas from 2003 until 2009. According to Diaz, Publimax had no other bank accounts in Texas or the United States. Diaz acknowledged that Publimax had done business with entities in Texas regarding the purchase of production equipment during the period of 2005 through 2009. Diaz stated that Pub-limax had been sued in an unrelated case in Hidalgo County, Texas. Diaz testified that the case involved Marlene who “felt that [Publimax] had cut relations with her, had affected her interests.” Diaz recalled that the parties had settled out of court.

Diaz stated that Publimax did not have a contract with Echostar, Dish Network, or Direct TV to provide its signal via satellite to Texas. Diaz thought that at some point, Publimax had planned to provide its Mexican programming via satellite to Texas residents. Diaz clarified that “[fit’s a recent [November 2011] agreement” with “Una Vez Mas.” According to Diaz, Publi-max agreed to “allow” retransmission of its morning news