section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
75,10,Objections — Plaintiffs' Exhibit A (Affidavit of Billy Shepherd),"Objects to the Shepherd affidavit on multiple grounds: (1) it is not based on 'personal knowledge' and does not state facts are 'true and correct,' so perjury does not attach — it is merely a statement by Pohl's interested counsel; (2) it fails to properly authenticate business records under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(10) — Shepherd is not shown to be custodian of records; (3) all attached documents are hearsay upon hearsay; (4) Shepherd failed to provide the requisite notice of his filing. Requests the affidavit and all attached documents be struck from the record."
76,10,Objections — Plaintiffs' Exhibit B (Declaration of Michael A. Pohl),"Objects to Paragraphs 3 through 9 of Pohl's declaration as conclusory and constituting no evidence as a matter of law. Challenges each paragraph individually: Para 3 (ownership of trade secrets — fails to describe what information is or explain ownership vs. Favre's claim); Para 4 (wrongful dominion — no factual support for why Kassab's control over lists obtained from Favre is wrongful); Para 5 (damages — doesn't identify trade secrets or explain how damaged); Para 6 (substantial measures to maintain confidentiality — conclusory, information ended up in Favre's hands); Para 7 (independent economic value — no underlying facts, doesn't describe materials or how they provide economic value); Para 8 (misappropriation and unjust enrichment — no facts explaining how, purported loss is speculative); Para 9 (conspiracy — conclusory statement within a conclusory statement, no facts supporting alleged conspiracy claims)."
77,10,"Reply — Documents Came from Precision, Not Pohl","Argues any documents Kassab obtained from Favre or Nicholson came into Favre's possession when he purchased Precision Marketing Group. Precision owned the documents, not Pohl. Even if documents were Pohl's legal files, they would belong to the clients under Texas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(d), not Pohl. Cites Texas Supreme Court and other authority that attorney is agent of client, work product belongs to client, and failure to turn over client files is 'willful and malicious' dishonorable conduct. Therefore Pohl lacks standing for conversion or trade secret claims."
78,10,Reply — The Commercial Exception Does Not Apply,"Argues Pohl failed to prove all four Castleman elements. The party asserting the exemption bears the burden of proving its applicability. Pohl's claims are for conversion and theft of trade secrets related to purchasing marketing lists and client files — not a 'commercial transaction involving legal services.' Kassab is not primarily engaged in purchasing marketing lists, which is the business Pohl's claims arise from. Pohl has not established that Kassab engaged in the conduct in his capacity as a seller of legal services, or that the intended audience were actual or potential customers for services Kassab is primarily engaged in."
79,10,Conclusion & Prayer,"Requests the Court grant the TCPA motion, order Pohl take nothing, and award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute."