Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
7 rows where filing_id = 53
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 402 | 53 53 | Background | Favre is a former co-defendant whose deposition has been elusive due to cancer treatment — he could not sit for a full remote Zoom deposition. Pohl served a DWQ on February 3, 2023. Instead of responding, Kassab served his own DWQ on February 17/20, 2023 with 145 questions containing leading questions, typos, and otherwise improper questions. Pohl objected to portions of 100 out of 145 questions. Kassab did not secure Favre's consent to a second DWQ, which was necessary since Favre was not subpoenaed. |
| 403 | 53 53 | Discussion — Leading Questions (Introduction) | Kassab's leading questions are improper because Tex. R. Evid. 611(c) prohibits leading questions on direct examination. Favre has been aligned with Kassab throughout the case — Kassab hired him as an expert, Favre was a co-defendant, and Pohl alleges Favre was a co-conspirator. Kassab's three justifications for treating Favre as 'hostile' all fail. Kassab's motion is just over two pages and fails to specify which objections he takes issue with. |
| 404 | 53 53 | 1. Nonsuit does not make Favre hostile | Kassab's primary justification — that Pohl nonsuited Favre — doesn't make Favre hostile to remaining defendants. Pohl nonsuited multiple defendants as part of an unsuccessful strategy to prevent trial delay. Given Favre's illness, Pohl had no confidence he could participate in a two-week trial. Kassab cites no authority showing nonsuit creates hostility. |
| 405 | 53 53 | 2. Dispute between Favre's lawyer and Kassab doesn't show hostility | Kassab demanded Wade and Pohl's counsel pay the cancelled deposition invoice the day after Favre was hospitalized. Wade's response showed obvious frustration. His actual statement was 'if you ask me that again, i will ask my client to sue' — which Pohl characterizes as 'facially non-serious.' The exchange reflects tension between counsel, not hostility from Favre himself. |
| 406 | 53 53 | 3. Scheduling issue doesn't demonstrate hostility | Wade spoke with Kassab's court reporter on February 24, then didn't respond to two scheduling emails on Feb. 28 (9:47 AM) and March 1 (10:12 AM). Kassab filed his motion at 3:57 PM on March 1 — just over 30 hours after the first email. The scheduling issue occurred after leading questions were already served (Feb. 20), so it cannot retroactively justify them. Kassab cites no authority that a lawyer's failure to respond to scheduling emails makes the client hostile. |
| 407 | 53 53 | Discussion — Form Objections | Many questions are facially objectionable. Kassab concedes some have 'typos or misspellings' but didn't fix them. Examples: Q#3 has typos ('How state how many,' 'compacity,' 'carrier'); Q#15 ('Is PMG a marketing company?') is vague and unlimited in time/scope; Q#18 ('Did PMG compile marketing lists?') calls for speculation since Favre purchased PMG after the alleged activities. Evidence is not always necessary to support form objections (In re Union Pac.). |
| 408 | 53 53 | Conclusion | Requests the court deny Kassab's motion and sustain Pohl's objections to the DWQ questions. |
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
);