Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
1 row where doc_type = "RPL" and phase = "Phase 4" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | 2023-03-15 | RPL | Kassab | Reply ISO Mtn to Rule | Kassab Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court before Judge Christine Weems. Kassab replies to Pohl's response (filing #53) opposing Kassab's motion to rule on objections to his DWQ of Scott Favre, arguing his questions are not leading, Pohl's own questions are leading, and Pohl's boilerplate objections are waived. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-15_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions of Scott Favre | 3/15/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73705718 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/15/2023 5:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ REPLYIN SUPPORT OF THIER MOTION TO RULE ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJEtCTIONS TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NOTICEi TO TAKE DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SCOTT FAVRE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMeS: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab aund Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Knassab”) file this, their Reply In Support of Their Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objectionsa to the Kassab Defendants Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre and would respectfully show the following. e KASSAB DOES N OOT f AGREE THAT HIS QUESTIONS ARE LEADING, BUT POHL’S QUESTIONS TO FAVRE WERE Plaintiffs claimo “[t]here is no dispute that Kassab asked leading questions, nor does Kassab clontend that any of Pohl’s “leading” objections were directed at non-leading quiestions.”1 Pohl’s claim is false as none of the questions propounded by Kassab are leading in the first place and Kassab made that abundantly clear to Pohl’s counsel in an email, stating “[t]he objections are all meritless.”2 After stating that all the objections were meritless, Kassab stated “[a]dditionally, your clients’ 1 Exhibit F, p. 3 2 Exhibit A. leading objections are improper” for two other reasons: leading questions are permitted on cross examination and for hostile witnesses.3 Kassab’s motion to rule simply focused on Plaintiffs’ absurd argument—meaning even if Kassab’s questions were leading, which they are not, Favre should be treated as a hostile wkitness. One need only look to the questions Pohl served Favre to Csee that Pohl has persuaded Favre to contradict his prior testimony to help Pohl with his frivolous retaliatory lawsuit against Kassab. i For instance, Favre has already testified in an affidavit and in Federal Cour… |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filings (
filing_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
date TEXT,
doc_type TEXT,
party TEXT,
description TEXT,
doc_type_detail TEXT,
procedural_posture TEXT,
chain TEXT,
outcome TEXT,
phase TEXT,
filename TEXT,
relief_requested TEXT,
full_text TEXT
);