Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
4 rows where filing_id = 35
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 265 | 35 35 | I. Factual Background | Pohl engaged Precision Marketing Group to provide PR services, gather evidence, and screen clients for BP and motor vehicle claims. Precision gained access to Pohl's confidential information. Favre, managing member of Precision, took physical copies of Pohl's information and possession of stolen computers. In November 2016, Montague, Nicholson, and Kassab arranged to purchase Pohl's stolen information from Favre for $250,000 plus bonuses, taking possession in December 2016. They valued and used the information to contact and solicit Pohl's clients. Defendants' barratry claims on behalf of 400+ plaintiffs have been nearly a complete failure — all but four resolved in Pohl's favor, and all State Bar grievances were rejected with findings that conduct did not violate disciplinary rules. Defendants' two core fallacies: (1) insisting Pohl didn't own his own client materials, and (2) seeking to relitigate failed barratry claims. |
| 266 | 35 35 | II.A. Conspiracy Evidence | Evidence of conspiracy includes: emails from September 2016 onwards showing Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague discussing deal with Favre; Kassab admitting joint venture with Montague; co-counsel agreements with Nicholson; written contracts with Pohl's clients showing co-counsel relationship. Montague admitted sending 'PMG documents' to Kassab in Texas, defining them as 'attorney-client contracts, communications, and lists of clients.' Nicholson actively ensured team received all client contracts. Kassab and Montague sought contact information beyond engagement agreements to solicit barratry claims. All three actively participated in obtaining and processing information. Damages proven through expert report (Zavitsanos on Fees), Pohl's declaration, and multiple evidence of value including Walker's testimony that client list was worth $6 million, Ladner's corroboration, and defendants' $250,000 payment. |
| 267 | 35 35 | II.B. Conversion Evidence | Elements established: (1) Ownership — Pohl testified he owns his computers, contracts, data, client files, work product, financial information; Walker, Ladner, and Seymour all testified client contracts/lists belong to Pohl; even if Pohl lacks legal title, evidence raises fact issue on superior right of possession (French v. Moore). (2) Unauthorized dominion — no dispute defendants obtained Pohl's contracts, communications, and client lists without permission; they used materials to file suits and grievances. (3) Demand and refusal — Pohl contends demand not legally required where defendants wrongfully acquired possession (Guillory v. Dietrich); regardless, Pohl's counsel Billy Shepherd made multiple demands for return; Pohl sought federal court sanctions for failure to return; Nicholson admitted in her MSJ that settlement required return of trade secrets. (4) Damages — owner is competent to testify on value (Wiese v. Pro Am Services); additional sources include Favre's $1.5 million purchase of Precision, Favre's affidavit on value, defendants' $250,000 payment, and attorneys' fees from defending barratry litigation. |
| 268 | 35 35 | II.C. TUTSA Evidence | Elements established: (1) Ownership — Pohl sworn to own materials with independent economic value not generally known; same ownership evidence as conversion claim; defendants' 'illegal acquisition' argument is reiteration of failed barratry claims. (2) Protection — Pohl strictly limited access; informed Precision of confidential nature 'numerous times'; corroborated by Precision witnesses; physical security: top of Hancock Bank ('most secure location on the Coast'), 24-hour security, coded elevators, security cameras, files under lock and key, clearly labeled engagement agreements. Absence of written confidentiality provision with Precision does not defeat 'reasonable measures under the circumstances.' (3) Knowing misappropriation — statutory definition includes acquisition by improper means and use with knowledge of improper derivation; Kassab and Nicholson knew as lawyers it was improper to obtain attorney's client contracts from third party without authorization; agreement contained indemnity provision for Favre re claims from Pohl; Nicholson sent threatening letters to obtain Pohl's information; certain uses occurred after May 2017 Settlement Agreement. (4) Damages — direct damages from litigation defense, market value constituting unjust enrichment/reasonable royalty. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filing_sections (
section_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
heading TEXT,
summary TEXT
);