Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
10 rows where filing_id = 55
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 414 | 55 55 | Introduction | Argues the Amended Motion does not specify what prior motions it amends, does not explain why prior rulings were wrong, and does not identify changes in facts, arguments, or law. Under the 281st Court's Procedure I(I), all motions to reconsider are heard by submission only. Pohl objects to oral hearing. |
| 415 | 55 55 | Background | Procedural history: Kassab's Original MSJs filed August 29, 2022; Pohl's responses filed September 12, 2022 (30+ exhibits); denial by 189th Court October 31, 2022 after oral hearing; Kassab's January 4, 2023 Motion to Reconsider filed with the wrong court (189th despite transfer); February 24, 2023 Amended Motion removing reconsideration references but asserting same arguments. |
| 416 | 55 55 | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Amended Motion | Objects to oral hearing because Amended Motion is substantively a motion to reconsider, which must be heard by submission only under 281st Court Procedure I(I). |
| 417 | 55 55 | Pohl's Incorporation of Prior Briefing | Incorporates by reference both prior summary judgment responses and all attached evidence from September 12, 2022 filings. |
| 418 | 55 55 | A. Kassab is not entitled to no-evidence summary judgment | Once Pohl provided sufficient evidence on each element (30+ exhibits in prior briefing), further no-evidence challenges are futile. The sole new argument — Pohl must prove he is 'wholly innocent' — is not an element of any claim, not supported by authority, and Kassab does not establish Pohl bears burden of proof on it. |
| 419 | 55 55 | B.1 — Prior briefing defeats Amended Motion | Excluding handful of exceptions, Kassab relies on same arguments, exhibits, and authority. Pages 2-88 of Amended Motion cover traditional MSJ and are largely identical to original. Nothing has changed since denial. |
| 420 | 55 55 | B.2.i — Trade secret protection | Kassab selectively cites Walker, Ladner, Seymour to suggest Pohl failed to protect trade secrets. But same witnesses testified Pohl limited access and ensured confidentiality. Arnold's deposition similarly supports Pohl when read in full — she understood Pohl owned the information and it was not to be shared with third parties. Disputed material facts preclude summary judgment. |
| 421 | 55 55 | B.2.ii — Ownership of trade secrets | Walker, Ladner, and Seymour gave conflicting testimony — some stating information was theirs, other portions stating it was Pohl's and kept confidential at his request. Four new exhibits (Exs. 62-65) don't overcome these disputed facts. |
| 422 | 55 55 | B.2.iii — Unlawful acts doctrine | Dugger v. Arredondo establishes the doctrine is no longer viable, preempted by proportionate responsibility. Even if not preempted: (1) controverting evidence on disputed facts, (2) Pohl doesn't need to rely on any illegal act to establish his claims (Carcamo-Lopez), (3) Alderson is factually inapposite (False Claims Act/tax case), (4) no Texas case has adopted the Restatement privilege from Merckle GmbH. |
| 423 | 55 55 | Conclusion | Requests the Court deny Kassab's Amended Motion for the reasons stated and in Pohl's prior briefing incorporated by reference. |
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
);