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 Court
in Mississippi that:
• In May 2016, he purchased Precision Marketing Group, LLC
(PMG) from Scott Walker and Kirk Ladner and is the sole
member of PMG.4 l
• PMG has developed propMrietary marketing lists consisting of the
names of persons and business on the Gulf Coast, particularly in
Mississippi.5
• PMG’s marketingi lists were and are solely the work product and
property of POMfG, developed during the normal course of its
marketing business.6
• Marketinog firms such as PMG develop lists of marketing
contracts (individually and/or businesses) and sell information
from lthose lists to their clients.7
• P f iMG used its marketing lists to identify potential clients and
othe lists themselves have always remained the proprietary
business property of PMG.8
3 Id. Emphasis added.
4 Exhibit B, par. 3.
5 Id., par. 11.
6 Id., par. 12.
7 Id., par. 13.
8 Id., par. 14.
• PMG’s marketing lists contain the names of thousands of
persons who eventually became Pohl’s former clients, and/or
whom Pohl solicited for representation.9
• PMG’s marketing lists constitute one of PMG’s most valuable
assets.10
• PMG never offered to sell any contracts, did not esell any
contracts and did not sell any marketing lists.11 C
• He agreed to give PMG’s marketing lists to Tina iNicholson to do
whatever she wanted to do with them.12 t
• He allowed Tina Nicholson to use PMG’s marketing lists, but
the list was never sold to anyone.13 s
• Michael Pohl and his counsel, Billy Shepherd “could care less if
that list gets out there or not.”14
Yet, after Pohl nonsuited Favre without any settlement terms whatsoever,
Pohl, in cahoots with Favre’s counsel, Daavid Wade, sent DWQ’s to Favre designed to
contradict Favre’s prior testimony rather than having a normal deposition.15 For
instance, an example of Pohl’s DWQ’s are as follows:
• Not all lists oOf contact information for individuals or businesses
that Precision possessed were lists of marketing contacts that
Precision opwned, correct?16
• In fact, at times, Precision had possession of lists of contact
infoarmlation for individuals or businesses that were created on
hialf of Mr. Pohl, correct?17
9 Id., par. 16.
10 Id., par. 20.
11 Exhibit C, p. 91-94
12 Id., p. 92.
13 Id., p. 92-93
14 Id., p. 93
15 Exhibits D & E.
16 Exhibit E, quest. 3
17 Id., quest. 4
• What had you been told, if anything, prior to executing Exhibit 4
regarding Michael Pohl and his consent to the purchase of the
assets outlined in Exhibit 4?18
Pohl’s “leading” questions suggest an answer for Favre. They suggest that
Favre possessed marketing lists not owned by PMG. They also suggest that PMG
possessed lists of contact information created on behalf of Pohl Crather than PMG.
They even suggest that Favre had been told that he needed Michael Pohl’s consent
to purchase PMG’s assets. Favre has already testified thiat PMG is a marketing
company he purchased in May of 2016 and that PMG developed marketing lists
containing contact information of businesses and individuals. He testified that all
of the marketing contact lists and contracts were PMG’s sole property and that he
was PMG’s sole member. Favre has also lalready testified that he freely gave this
information to Tina Nicholson to do wMhatever she wanted to do with it so that Pohl
could be held accountable for his illegal acts.19
Pohl’s questions are desiigned to suggest that Favre perjured himself when he
testified earlier. Of course, Pohl now objects to almost every question posed to
Favre by Kassab in ao transparent attempt to keep all of the facts that decimate his
frivolous retaliatorly case from coming to lite. In any event, Kassab’s questions are
not vague or aimbiguous, and they are certainly not leading.
KASSAB’S QUESTIONS ARE NOT LEADING
Leading questions are questions that suggest a specific desired answer.
Implement Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. Castleberry, 368 S.W.2d 249, 253 (Tex. Civ. App.—
18 Id., quest. 15
19 Exhibit C, p. 92-93
Beaumont 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (‘“[T]he essential element necessary to render the
question improper is that it suggests the specific answer desired.”’) (quoting 1
CHARLES T. MCCORMICK & ROY R. RAY, TEXAS PRACTICE, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL § 571, at 451 (2d ed. 1956))); MCCORMICK ON EVI k DENCE, supra
note 2, § 6, at 11 (leading question “is one that suggests to the wCitness the answer
desired by the examiner”). See generally 3 WIGMORE, supra not
e 303, §§ 769-772.
Pohl made leading objections to Kassab’s questionsi 15-19, 24-26, 29, 31-39,
45-47, 53, 56-70, 73-79, 91-96, 109-112, 114-118, 120-122 and 129-145. All of these
leading objections are frivolous. A sampling of the questions which Pohl lodged
leading objections are as follows
• 15. Is PMG a marketing colmpany?
• 56. Is it true or falseM that you are listed as the purchaser in
Exhibit 4? 
• 63. Did you purchase all of the assets listed in paragraphs
1.1.1 through 1.1i.7 of Exhibit 4?
• 73. After you purchased PMG, were you the 100% owner of
PMG? p
• 78. Did you tell Lance Kassab that you needed Michael Pohl’s
conselnt to give any documents owned by PMG to Lance Kassab?
• 7f i9. Did you tell Lance Kassab that any of the documents you
ogave to Lance Kassab belonged to Michael Pohl?
• 91. Did the amendments contained in Exhibit 6 become
effective as of noon on the 9th day of December, 2015?
• 94. Does Exhibit 6 add paragraph 1.1.7 to Exhibit 4?
• 111. Did you use PMG’s client contact information to help you
or one of your companies bring claims against BP?
• 112. Did you purchase PMG so that you could help bring
claims against Michael Pohl?
• 117. Did you tell Lance Kassab that you had/were in lawful
possession of Precision’s marketing lists? e
• 133. Did you testify under oath at the Octobter 25, 2017
hearing in front of Judge Starrett that, “At no tiime was it ever
sold to anyone.”? t
• 134. Does “it” in question 133 refer to Precision’s marketing
lists containing Precision’s client contacts information?
• 139. Did you testify under oath at the October 25, 2017
hearing in front of Judge Starrett that Michael Pohl and Billy
Shepherd told you, “We could care less if that list gets out there
or not.”?
• 140. Does the “We” in quaestions 139 refer to Michael Pohl and
Billy Shepherd?
These are not leading questions as they do not suggest a specific answer.
Even if they could be construied as doing so, they are not “impermissible” leading
questions. The mere fact that a question may be answered by a simple “yes” or “no”
does not render it ano impermissibly leading question. Wheeler v. State, 433 S.W.3d
650, 655 (Tex. Aaplp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing Newsome v. State,
829 S.W.2d, 2f i69 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no pet.). It is only when the question
suggests which answer is desired, “yes” or “no,” that it becomes a leading
question. Newsome, 829 S.W.2d at 269. Although many of these questions can be
answered with a “yes” or “no”, they are not leading because they do not suggest
what the answer should be. The answer could be “yes” or “no.” Thus, the questions
do not suggest a “specific desired answer.”
Moreover, leading questions may also be permitted to clarify a witness’s
previous testimony or to jog the memory of a witness whose recollectkion has been
exhausted. See MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, supra note 2, § 6, at 1C3l see also Holbert
v. State, 457 S.W.2d 286, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Additionally, rather than
abandoning all efforts to bring out a witnesses’ testimoniy, a judge may exercise
discretion in allowing leading questions so that the full truth may be presented. See
MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, supra note 2, § 6, at 13; 3 WIGMORE, supra note 303, §
770, at 161-62, § 773, at 166.
Kassab has attempted to take thel deposition of Favre for more than two
years. Favre has resisted being depMosed for various reasons, the latest being his
health. Favre admits that he is exhausted and cannot sit for a normal deposition.
Thus, Kassab has been rendeired helpless with his pursuit to depose Favre in a
normal fashion where questions can be stated over and rephrased to accommodate
an objection, even ao frivolous objection. Here, Kassab only has the awkward
approach of DWQ’ls to get usable testimony that will prove Pohl’s case is illusory at
best, brought iin bad faith, at worst. It is understandable as to why Pohl wishes to
have none of this testimony in front of a jury. However, it is highly prejudicial to
prevent Kassab from attaining this testimony and presenting it to a jury.
Kassab attempted to make answering the DWQ’s easy for Favre because of
his condition by providing documents wherein Favre was a party to refresh or jog
his memory. See MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, supra note 2, § 6, at 13l see also Holbert
v. State, 457 S.W.2d 286, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Yet, the DWQ’s are phrased so
an answer is not suggested as Favre can answer “yes” or “no” to many of the
questions. Moreover, none of Kassab’s questions suggest a correckt answer by
containing a tag phrase such as “didn’t he,” “isn’t it true that,” “wCould you agree” or
“correct” as many of Pohl’s questions do. Nor do the questions instruct the witness
how to answer the questions. Thus, none of Kassab’s iquestions are leading or
improper.
POHL WAIVED HIS OBJECTIONS
Pohl made many vague and ambiguous objections to many of Kassab’s
DWQ’s. However, Pohl fails to complyl or carry his burden regarding these
objections, thus, they are waived. M
It is settled that a responding party must have “a good faith factual and
legal basis” for each objectioin “at the time the objection is made.” TEX. R. CIV.
P. 193.2(c) (emphasis added). “The party must state specifically the legal or
factual basis for the oobjection and the extent to which the party is refusing
to comply with
tlhe request.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.2(a) (emphasis added). Thus, a
responding pairty who objects to a request because it is vague and ambiguous,
equally available, unduly burdensome, duplicative, overly broad, or assumes facts
not in evidence – as Plaintiffs have done here – must explain “specifically” at the
time the objection is made why the discovery request is objectionable and must
state “the extent to which [they are] refusing to comply” with the request. See id.
But here, Plaintiffs merely asserted the same or similar improper, prophylactic,
boilerplate objections in an attempt to obstruct justice and hide evidence with
improper and frivolous boiler plate objections.20 By failing to comply with proper
discovery procedures, Plaintiffs have waived their objections. See TE k X. R. CIV. P.
193.2(e); In re Soto, 270 S.W.3d 732, 735 (Tex. App.—AmCarillo 2008, orig.
proceeding [mand. denied]) (party’s failure to comply with rules of civil procedure
waives objections). i
KASSAB’S QUESTIONS ARE NOT VAGUE AsND AMBIGUOUS
Moreover, a responding party has a duty to use common sense when
interpreting words and phrases used in discovery requests, giving them their
ordinary meanings, their specialized melaning used in the industry at issue, or
defining them as the opposing party Mhas defined or used them in its pleadings. See
In re Swepi L.P., 103 S.W.3d 578, 590 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2003, orig.
proceeding) (recognizing thati the terms used in the discovery requests, although
undefined, were “easily defined in the context of the lawsuit.”). Plaintiffs and their
counsel hold themselvoes out as accomplished seasoned lawyers; surely together they
can understand thle terms used in Kassab’s DWQ’s in the context of the lawsuit or
given their oridinary meaning, even if they are not defined. Plaintiffs should not
have to define words such as “PMG’s clients” for counsel who claims to be a “Top
100 Super Lawyer.”21
20 Exhibit D, p. 25.
21 https://www.reynoldsfrizzell.com/attorneys/jean-frizzell/
Additionally, simply because a typo exists in a question or a phrase is not
spelled exactly the same as depicted in a document that is attached to a DWQ, does
not warrant an objection. It is difficult enough to take a pertinent deposition on
DWQs without well-seasoned, Super Lawyers lodging frivolous objecktions because
they somehow cannot understand a sentence due to a typo. C It is even more
obstructive and disingenuous for Plaintiffs to lodge an objection as to vague and
ambiguous due to a passage written that is not exact fromi a document, when they
had to look at the document to be able to discern that a typo existed. This
underscores Plaintiff’s intentional obstructionism through frivolous objections. Pohl
has abused the discovery process by failing to use common sense in an effort to
obstruct Favre’s testimony. The Court sholuld not condone such obstructionism.
CONCL M USION & PRAYER
For the reasons stated herein, and in the motion to rule, Pohl’s objections
should be overruled. i
 Respectfully submitted,
o THE KASSAB LAW FIRM
i __________________________
f i DAVID ERIC KASSAB
o Texas State Bar No. 24071351
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB
Texas State Bar No. 00794070
NICHOLAS R. PIERCE
Texas State Bar No. 24098263
1214 Elgin Street
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: 713-522-7400
Facsimile: 713-522-7410
10
E-Service: eserve@kassab.law
ATTORNEYS FOR KASSAB DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date, March 15, 2023, I electronically fileed this document
with the Clerk of the Court using the eFile.TXCourts.gov electrConic filing system
which will send notification of such filing to all parties or counsel of record.
_______________________
DAVID eERIC KASSAB
11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab
Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law r
Envelope ID: 73705718
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Kassab Defendants' Reply ISO Motion to Rtule on
Objections to DWQ to Favre i
Status as of 3/16/2023 8:32 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Name BarNumber Email g TimestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scaott@favrepa.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Misty Davis c mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Lance Kassab f eserve@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez  andrea@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy SheCpherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Non-Party Dona Pohl a DonaLyann@yahoo.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
David Kassab o david@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Nicholas PiercUe nicholas@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab
Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law r
Envelope ID: 73705718
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Kassab Defendants' Reply ISO Motion to Rtule on
Objections to DWQ to Favre i
Status as of 3/16/2023 8:32 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
D Kassab david@kassab.lagw 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton reception@kassab.law 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfaogler@foglerbrar.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT
Non-Party Edgar Jaimes edgarsroom@gmail.com 3/15/2023 5:09:32 PM SENT"
18,2021-08-02,RPL,Kassab,Kassab’s reply ISO Traditional MSJ,"Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Response and Reply in Support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, with extensive evidentiary objections and rebuttal arguments on all three grounds","Reply brief filed one week after Pohl's response (July 26, 2021) to Kassab's Traditional MSJ. Filed August 1-2, 2021. Contains two major sections: (1) detailed paragraph-by-paragraph evidentiary objections to Pohl's Declaration (Exhibit A) seeking to strike key paragraphs and exhibits as conclusory, hearsay, or lacking foundation; (2) substantive reply arguments on limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. Kassab represents himself pro se with David Eric Kassab.",MSJ-1,N/A,Phase 2,2021-08-02_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf,"Sustain all evidentiary objections; strike Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Pohl's Declaration and Exhibits 1-2; grant Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment ordering that Plaintiffs take nothing","8/1/2021 7:39 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 55892722
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 8/2/2021 12:00 AM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT
THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFCFS’ RESPONSE
AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR:
Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The
Kassab Law Firm file this, their Objections to Plaeintiffs’ Response and Reply in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment uand would respectfully show the
following.
BJECTIONS
Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.
d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm i(collectively, “Kassab”) object to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A,
the sworn declaration of Michael A. Pohl, because statements contained in this
declaration are concluosory, contain hearsay and contain no foundation or predicate
to support personall knowledge, and thus, constitute no evidence at all.
Conclusiory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as
a matter of law. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996);
Stephens v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Servs. Corp., No. 01-11-00326-CV, 2013 Tex.
App. LEXIS 5700, at *19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 9, 2013, no pet.)
(mem. op.). “A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying
facts to support the conclusion.” Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 930 (Tex.
App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Moreover, an affidavit is conclusory
when it expresses “a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which
the inference is based.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Cok., 259 S.W.3d
800, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). ThusC, bare conclusions
are not evidence and are not probative of any facts. See Bavishi v. Sterling Air
Conditioning, Inc., No. 01-10-00610-CV, 2011 Tex. App.i LEXIS 6271, at *24-26
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Pohl’s declaration consists
of nothing but conclusory statements.
Kassab objects to Paragraph 4, which states: “Pohl engaged Precision
Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to prlovide public relations services, to gather
and preserve evidence, and to screenM and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective
clients.” This statement is conclusory because Pohl fails to provide any foundation
or predicate for the statementi such as when, where, and how he engaged Precision.
Pohl does not state what Precision is, who owns Precision, who he met with at
Precision, when he ostruck an agreement with Precision, when Precision was
supposed to condulct its work or what Precision was to receive. Pohl does not state
what any of thie details of the agreement with Precision are, when Precision is to act
and for how long the agreement is to take place or where it is to take place. And,
although Pohl states why he allegedly “engaged Precision,” he does not provide any
detail or specificity regarding the conclusory remark in paragraph 4. “[G]ather and
preserve” what evidence? “[S]creen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective
clients” how? What type of screening? What type of liaising? What location? For
what purpose? There is simply no predicate or foundation to support this conclusory
statement, and thus, Pohl’s paragraph 4 contains nothing but bare conclusions
which constitutes no evidence and is not probative of any facts. See Bkavishi, 2011
Tex. App. LEXIS 6271, at *24-26. C
Kassab objects to Paragraph 5, which states: “I was and am the owner of the
confidential, privileged and trade secret information thait Kassab obtained from
Scott Favre, Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), and Tina Nicholson on
which this suit is based.” This statement is conclusory because Pohl fails to describe
what the purported confidential information or trade secrets are or explain how he
is the rightful owner of this information asl opposed to Favre or Precision, who have
claimed to be the owner of the aMlleged marketing lists provided to Kassab.
Additionally, Pohl fails to state when or why he obtained this information or what
makes it confidential or priivileged. Moreover, Pohl fails to explain how the
information even constitutes a trade secret. See Game Sys. v. Forbes Hutton
Leasing, Inc., No. 02-o09-00051-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4098, at *76 (Tex. App. –
Fort Worth, Mayl 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (statement that the software
“constitutes ai trade secret” was conclusory and not proper evidence). Pohl’s
paragraph 5 contains nothing but bare conclusions which constitutes no evidence
and is not probative of any facts. See Bavishi, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6271, at *24-
26.
Kassab objects to Paragraph 6 because it is conclusory and contains hearsay.
First, Kassab objects to the following statement as conclusory: “Specifically,
prior to that sale, Precision undertook to convert, misappropriate for itself, and/or
market to third parties claimant files and other information and materials that
belong to me, and to which they had access while working for me.”k Pohl fails to
explain what “sale” he is referring to. Who purchased what from wChom? When was
there a sale? Where did a sale take place? Pohl even fails to provide personal
knowledge regard a sale. i
Pohl also fails to provide any factual support about how Precision allegedly
converted his purported “information or materials.” Pohl also fails to provide and
foundation or predicate for the statement. Pohl fails to state how Precision
undertook to convert or misappropriate forl itself anything. Pohl fails to state when
items were converted or misapproprMiated, why Precision undertook to convert or
misappropriate something, where it was converted or misappropriated, how long
something was converted or miisappropriated, whether Pohl attempted to stop the
conversion or misappropriation, when and how Pohl attempted to stop the
conversion or misapporopriation, and what Pohl did to stop, prevent or safeguard
against any converlsion or misappropriation.
Moreoveir, Kassab also objects to the next sentence in this paragraph,
wherein Pohl claims that the information taken “include[s] original client
contingency fee contracts between my clients and me (and to which Precision and/or
its affiliates are not parties); documentation of contact and personal information;
claim information; compilations of former and current clients; and supporting
materials.” Under Texas law, Pohl is not the owner of this information; “a client
owns the contents of his or her file.” In re Cook, 597 S.W.3d 589, 597 (Tex. App. –
Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Therefore, Pohl’s statement that he is the owner
of this information is conclusory because Pohl does not explain howk he owns the
information as opposed to his clients. C
Pohl’s statement that “Kirk Ladner (a former owner of Precision) admitted to
absconding with those files and, without my consent, kepit them at his residence
until they were later delivered, also without my consent, to Scott Favre, the
subsequent managing member of Precision” is conclusory and contains hearsay.
What Ladner purportedly admitted to is hearsay. See TEX. R. EVID. 801(c).
Additionally, Pohl does not provide any lfactual support for his conclusion that
Ladner purportedly absconded withM the files. Therefore, in addition to being
hearsay, the statement is also conclusory.
Kassab objects to Paragiraph 7 which states, “Precision also refused to return
and converted to its own use multiple computers that I purchased for my office and
which Precision usedo while there performing services for me.” This statement is
conclusory becausle it fails to provide any factual support for the statement that
Precision allegiedly refused to return or converted to its own use computers allegedly
purchased by Pohl. Pohl fails to state when he allegedly purchased computers, how
many computers were purchased, which of the computers purchased were
converted, what type of computers he is referring to and when these mysterious
computers where converted.
Kassab objects to multiple statements in Paragraph 8 as conclusory and
speculative, lacking personal knowledge and because they contain hearsay.
First, the statement “Precision expressed their understanding of the
confidential nature of the information based on their prior experiencek in providing
litigation-related services to BP claims facilities and to attorneyCs, a field in which
Precision held themselves out to me as experienced professionals” is conclusory.
Pohl does not state who at Precision allegedly expressed thieir understanding of the
confidential nature of the information, how it was expressed, when it was
expressed, where it was expressed, why it was expressed or who it was expressed to.
Pohl also does not state who at Precision allegedly held themselves out to Pohl as
“experienced professionals” or provide factls to demonstrate how that occurred, when
it occurred, or where it occurred, if it Meven did.
Second, the statement, “Precision expressed their understanding of the
confidential nature of the infoirmation” is also impermissible hearsay. See TEX. R.
EVID. 801(c).
Third, Kassab oobjects to the following statement “Nevertheless, without my
consent, and altholugh they were without legal title to the contracts, documents,
computers, paisswords or data stored thereon, Precision purported to sell the
contracts, documents, computer, passwords and/or stored data to Scott Favre (even
after I had informed Favre that the materials had been stolen from me by
Precision), who it appears (with Tina Nicholson’s assistance) eventually sold those
items and the information therein to Kassab.” This statement is conclusory because
Pohl does not explain why Precision would not have his consent to do what it
allegedly did, or why Precision would not have “legal title” to the information. Pohl’s
contention that Precision did not have “legal title” is an unsupported legal
conclusion. Moreover, Pohl’s statement that Precision “purportedk to sell” or
“appears” to have eventually sold the information to Kassab is nCothing more than
speculation by Pohl as what Precision did, which is insufficient. See Ryland Grp. v.
Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996) (“interested witnesis’ affidavit which recites
that the affiant ‘estimates,’ or ‘believes’ certain facts to be true will not support
summary judgment.”); Essex Ins. Co. v. Mason Bros. Constr., Inc., No. 07-02-0408-
CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 5740, at *13 (Tex. App. – Amarillo June 29, 2004, pet.
denied) (mem. op.) (statement that “it appelars” some fact occurred was conclusory).
Kassab also objects to ParagrMaph 9 as conclusory. Pohl states “Prior to the
two year period leading up to the filing of this case, I was unaware that Scott Favre
and Precision, with the assistiance of Tina Nicholson, had sold my information to
Kassab and Montague.” But Pohl provides no facts to support any conclusion that
an actual sale occurreod. Pohl does not state how he knows a sale occurred or provide
any details of thel purported sale. Pohl fails to state where an alleged sale took
place, what wias sold, who paid what for an alleged sale, how he was privy to this
alleged sale or how he has personal knowledge of any kind related to this alleged
sale. Moreover, Pohl fails to provide facts to support his conclusion that he was
unaware of any purported sale.
Pohl also states, “And, in fact, that sale occurred in November of 2016, less
than two years before this suit was filed.” But again, Pohl fails to provide any detail
relating to how he knows or has personal knowledge of a purported sale occurring
on this date. Thus, Kassab objects to this statement as well because it iks conclusory.
Kassab also objects to paragraph 10 because it is vagueC, ambiguous, not
clear, positive or direct, or free from contradiction. Pohl states in paragraph 10
that, “Pohl, Precision, and other entities and individuals weire parties to a lawsuit in
Federal court in Mississippi, . . .” He then states, “No other Defendants were
parties to the Federal Court Case.” Pohl does not identify what “other entities and
individuals were parties to the lawsuit.” Therefore, when he states, “No other
Defendants were parties to the Federal Clourt Case”, the entire paragraph is not
clear, positive, direct or free from conMtradiction, and therefore, it is also vague and
ambiguous, and must be struck. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); McIntire v. Ramirez, 109
S.W.3d 741, 749 (Tex. 2003); Tirico Techs. Montiel, 949 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Tex. 1997)
(to establish facts, an interested witness’s testimony must be clear, positive, direct,
credible, free from conotradiction and uncontroverted even though it could have been
readily controverteld). Since the testimony does not meet these requirements, it will
not support suimmary judgment. See Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex.
1989).
Kassab also objects to Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to Pohl’s declaration and
objects to paragraphs 12 and 13, which attempt to authenticate Exhibits 1 and 2
within the declaration. Pohl swears under oath that Exhibits 1 and 2 are “true and
correct”, however, Pohl provides no basis for this statement.
Pohl states that “Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an agreement among
and between Scott Favre, PA LLC, the Kassab Law Firm and Montakgue, Pittman
and Varnado, P.A., dated November 10, 2016 executed by LCance Kassab and
produced by Precision to Pohl after the court’s April 24, 2017 order in the Federal
Court Case.” However, Pohl is not a party to the alleged aigreement. Additionally,
Pohl does not state how he knows the document is what he purports it to be. Pohl
does not state that he was present when the alleged agreement was executed, nor
does he state that he saw the parties execute the alleged agreement. Moreover,
Pohl does not provide any details relatling to his statement that this alleged
agreement was “produced by PrecisiMon to Pohl.” Pohl does not state how it was
allegedly produced, when it was produced, where it was produced or why it was
produced. Pohl also fails to staite what order he is referring to.
Additionally, Pohl states that “Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an
email, dated Decembeor 7, 2016 from Doug Montague to Lance Kassab, with copies
to Tina Nicholson,l Scott Favre, and Andrea Mendez, and produced by Precision to
Pohl after thei court’s April 24, 2017 order in the Federal Court Case.” However,
Pohl is not a party to the alleged email. Furthermore, Pohl does not state how he
knows the document is what he purports it to be. Pohl does not state that he was
present when the alleged email was drafted, who drafted it or why it was drafted or
sent, nor does he state that he saw the parties draft or send the alleged email.
Moreover, Pohl does not provide any details relating to his statement that this
alleged agreement was “produced by Precision to Pohl.” Pohl does not state how it
was allegedly produced, when it was produced, where it was produced or why it was
produced. Pohl also fails to state what order he is referring to. k
An affidavit must show affirmatively that the witness is cCompetent. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 166a(f). Competency does not refer to the sufficiency of the specific
testimony, which is an issue of personal knowledge. Laidilaw Waste Sys. v. City of
Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Tex. 1995) (witness was found not competent to
testify about property metes and bounds because he made only conclusory
statements). Additionally, an affidavit must be based on the affiant’s personal
knowledge and must state that the facts lin it are true and correct. Humphreys v.
Caldwell, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470 (TexM. 1994); see TEX. R. EVID. 602 (evidence must
show how witness has personal knowledge); Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666, 668
(Tex. 2008) (affidavit did not ishow how witness could have personal knowledge of
particular events); Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750 S.W.2d 760, 761-62 (Tex.
1988 (affidavit did noto show how witness became familiar with facts about operation
of radio station). lBecause Pohl’s declaration fails to show personal knowledge and
competency reigarding the prove up Exhibits 1 and 2, they must be struck.
Accordingly, Kassab requests that Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Pohl’s
declaration be stuck. Additionally, Kassab requests that Exhibits 1 and 2 attached
to Pohl’s affidavit be struck. With these paragraphs and exhibits struck, Pohl has
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to defeat Kassab’s claims of
10
limitations, res judicata and attorney immunity, rendering summary judgment in
favor of Kassab proper.
REPLY
A. Limitations e
Pohl argues that his claims against Kassab accrued when Kasab allegedly
purchased Pohl’s confidential information through a contratct dated November 10,
2016. Resp. at 5. However, Pohl testified under oath, and the evidence demonstrates
that Pohl accused Kassab of stealing his informeation and knew of Kassab’s
involvement in 2014 but did not immediately filue a lawsuit against Kassab because
he “wanted to spend time to reflect on it before taking action [and] didn’t want to do
anything that was precipitous.” Mot. Eaxhibit 3, at 93. Pohl’s argument that “it does
not matter” that he knew of Precision’s purported theft earlier is without merit
because a cause of action accruees when (1) “the allegedly tortious act was committed
and caused an injury;” or (2f) “facts come into existence that authorize a party to
seek a judicial remedy.” United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. First St. Hosp. LP, 570
S.W.3d 323, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). This is true
even if all resuliting damages have not yet occurred. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v.
Pasko, 544 oS.W.3d 830, 834 (Tex. 2018)
Pohl testified under oath that he learned of the basis of his purported claims
against Kassab during discovery in the Federal Court Case. Mot. Exhibit 1.
Specifically, Pohl testified during the course of discovery in that case it was
“revealed” that Precision – a defendant in this case – and the company’s former
11
owners (Walker and Ladner) allegedly “undertook to convert, misappropriate, for
themselves and/or market to third parties [Kassab] claimant files and other
information and materials that belong to [him].” Mot. Exhibit 1, at 28. Pohl
testified: “Those items include original client contingency fee contractsk between my
clients and me …, documentation of contact and personal inCformation, claim
information and supporting materials.” Id. Pohl testified that those files “were at
one time maintained in approximately seventeen clear plaistic file containers” and
that “Ladner admitted absconding with those files from [Pohl’s] satellite law office
and, without [Pohl’s] consent, kept them at his residence until they were later
delivered, also without [Pohl’s] consent, to Scott Favre” – the current owner of
Precision, who is also a defendant in this lcase. Id. Pohl complains in that affidavit
that Nicholson “refused to return anMd converted to [her] own use” four computers
that Pohl purchased for his office and which Precision used while soliciting clients
for Pohl. Id. Pohl testifies thait those computers contained “marketing information
and other trade secrets, [his] proprietary client forms” and other unidentified work
product. Id. Pohl testoifies that the “theft and unlawful disclosure was made even
more egregious” wlhen Favre refused to return the information and “appears [to
have] eventuailly sold those items and the information therein to [Kassab].” Mot.
Exhibit 1, at 29. In substance, Pohl testified under oath that Kassab and his “crew”
broke into his office in “Gulfport, Mississippi” and stole his stuff in 2014.
Notably, Pohl does not dispute any of this testimony in his Response. Rather,
Pohl states that “Kassab bears the burden to and must ‘conclusively prove when’
12
each of Pohl’s causes of action accrued and must also negate the discovery rule to be
entitled to summary judgment on limitations. Resp. at 3. However, Kassab has
conclusively proven when each of Pohl’s causes of action accrued—the testimony
came straight from Pohl’s mouth when he testified under oath as ouktlined above
and in more detail within the Motion for Summary JudgmentC. And, although
Kassab did negate the discovery rule by Pohl’s own sworn testimony, Pohl never
pled the discovery rule. Thus, the discovery rule does niot apply to the pending
motion. Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. 1988) (party
seeking to avail itself of the discovery rule must plead the rule). Moreover, the
discovery rule only applies when the subject matter is inherently undiscoverable
and objectively verifiable. Wagner & Brouln, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W. 3d 732, 734
(Tex. 2001). Pohl testified under oaMth that Kassab and his crew stole his stuff in
2014. There is nothing inherently undiscoverable about this.
Pohl attempts to autheinticate and cite to an alleged email that somehow
proves that Kassab obtained his documents at a later date beyond 2014. However,
the proposition Pohl oattempts by way of the alleged email is not only contrary to
Pohl’s sworn testilmony, but it also proves absolutely nothing relating to Kassab’s
alleged unlawiful conduct. The alleged email not only contains hearsay, but it also
does not provide any passage that states that Pohl’s documents are being obtained
by Kassab on a particular date. In fact, Pohl’s name is nowhere to be found in the
email. Nor was he a party to the email. Thus, the alleged email proves nothing
even if it were admitted into the summary judgment record.
13
B. Res Judicata
Pohl argues that Kassab has not established that he was in privity with the
parties in the Federal Court Case and has not established that the claims against
Kassab are the same that were made in the Federal Court Casek. Resp. at 8.
However, Kassab conclusively did establish the element of priCvity and that the
second action was based on the same claims as were or could have been raised in
the first action. i
Pohl has sued Favre and Precision in this litigation for the same conversion
and theft of trade secrets he is suing Kassab for. Pohl also sued Precision in the
Federal Court Case. And, of course, Precision was owned by Favre during the
pendency and settlement of the Federal Clourt Case. Additionally, Pohl has alleged
and judicially admitted that Favre, PMrecision and Kassab are co-conspirators to the
conversion and trade secrets claims. Thus, Kassab is in privity with Precision and
Favre relating to the claims miade in the Federal Court Case. Palaxar Grp., LLC v.
Williams, No. 6:14-cv-758-0rl-28GJK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138533, at *43 (M.D.
Fla. Sep. 30, 2014); oSeenyur v. Coolidge, No. 16-cv-3832 (WMW/BRT), 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 5895l, at *6 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2018) (“Members of a conspiracy are
deemed underi the law to be in privity with each other.”); RSM Prod. Corp. v.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, 800 F. Supp. 2d 182, 193 (D.D.C. 2011)
(same). See also SED Holdings, L.L.C. v. TM Prop. Sols., L.L.C. (In re 3 Star Props.,
L.L.C.), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22430 (5th Cir. 2021).
14
Additionally, Kassab conclusively proved that the claims made in this case.
In the Federal Court Case, not only did Pohl sue Precision for alleged theft of his
property (Mot. Exhibit 2, par. 6), but Pohl recognized during discovery that
Precision and Walker had allegedly “undertook to convert, misappkropriate, for
themselves and/or market to third parties” like Kassab “claimaCnt files and other
information and materials” that allegedly belonged to Pohl, including “original
client contingency fee contracts between [Pohl’s] cilients and [Pohl] …,
documentation of contact and personal information, claim information and
supporting materials.” Mot. Exhibit 1, par 28. Pohl identifies that material as
“marketing information and other trade secrets,” and claims that it was stolen by
Precision and its current or former ownelrs, including Favre, a defendant in this
case, and Favre’s counsel, Nicholson, Malso a defendant in this case. Id. Pohl testifies
that the “theft and unlawful disclosure was made even more egregious” when Favre
“appears [to have] eventualliy sold those items and the information therein to
[Kassab].” Mot. Exhibit 1, par. 29.
In this case, Poohl alleges that, while working for him, Precision “gained
access to Pohl’s colnfidential and proprietary information and property, including
trade secret miaterials, that included the identities of Pohl’s clients/prospective
clients, as well as their detailed contact information.” Pohl’s Pet., p. 20. Pohl
alleges that Favre and Precision “stole physical copies of certain of the information,
stole Pohl’s computers, and misappropriated electronic data to which they had
access through Precision’s work for Pohl.” Pohl’s Pet., p. 21. Pohl can not run away
15
from his own sworn testimony. Therefore, res judicata has been conclusively
proved.
C. Attorney Immunity
Pohl argues that the attorney immunity doctrine does not applky to Kassab’s
conduct, and thus, summary judgment cannot be granted on atCtorney immunity.
Pohl cites a couple of cases that stand for general principals which do not apply
here, yet fails to distinguish any of the multitude of caises that Kassab cites to
support his argument regarding attorney immunity.
However, the law in Texas is clear and unambiguous, “[A]n attorney is
immune from liability to nonclients for conduct within the scope of his
representation of his clients.” Youngkin v.l Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 681 (Tex. 2018).
The inquiry “focuses on the kind Mof conduct at issue rather than the alleged
wrongfulness of said conduct.” Id. “That is, a lawyer is no more susceptible to
liability for a given action meriely because it is alleged to be fraudulent or otherwise
wrongful.” Id. “Merely labeling an attorney’s conduct ‘fraudulent’ does not and
should not remove it ofrom the scope of client representation or render it ‘foreign to
the duties of an alttorney.’” Id. at 483. Even “criminal conduct is not categorically
excepted fromi the protections of attorney civil immunity when the conduct alleged
is connected with representing a client in litigation.” Bethel v. Quilling, Selander,
Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 657 (Tex. 2020); Cantey Hanger,
LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Tex. 2015) (“an attorney’s conduct may be
wrongful but still fall within the scope of client representation”).
16
The entire basis for Pohl’s lawsuit against Kassab is that Kassab allegedly
purchased the purportedly stolen information and “solicited [Pohl’s]
clients/prospective clients to act as plaintiffs … to bring cases against Pohl for
alleged barratry and other claims.” Pohl’s Pet., par. 29. The esseknce of Pohl’s
claims against Kassab are “that Kassab bought Pohl’s client list fCrom [Precision] so
that Kassab could send advertisements to Pohl’s former clients and solicit them to
become Kassab’s clients in barratry suits against Pohl.” Kaissab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d
571, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (characterizing Pohl’s
claims against Kassab). These claims fall squarely within attorney immunity, and
Pohl’s characterization of this conduct as wrongful is immaterial. See Highland
Capital Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGlraw, P.C., No. 05-15-00055-CV, 2016 Tex.
App. LEXIS 442 (Tex. App.—Dallas JMan. 14, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“That [a
party] characterized the firm’s conduct as fraudulent or otherwise wrongful was
immaterial to [the court’s] evailuation of the immunity defense.”).
The fact that Kassab is alleged to have committed the misconduct prior to
any litigation is immaoterial because “attorney immunity applies to claims based on
conduct outside thle litigation context[.]” See Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC,
No. 20-0066, i2021 Tex. LEXIS 423, at *32 (May 21, 2021); Cantey Hanger, 467
S.W.3d at 485 (stating that “[t]he majority of Texas cases addressing attorney
immunity arise in the litigation context [,] [b]ut that is not universally the case” and
concluding that attorney was immune from conduct that occurred after litigation
had ended); Santiago v. Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., No. 05-16-00394-CV,
17
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2092, at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 10, 2017, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (recognizing that Texas courts “have noted that attorney
immunity applies outside of the litigation context” and citing opinions).
In this very case, the court of appeals opined that “the allegedk purchase of
Pohl[’s] client list for those clients’ contact information, followedC by the mailing of
attorney advertisements to those individuals about specific types of claims they
might be able to pursue against a specifically identifiedi attorney, qualifies as
statements or conduct that arose out of a commercial transaction
involving the type of legal services Kassab provides.” Kassab, 612 S.W.3d at
578 (emphasis added).1 That court opined that “the intended audience of [Kassab’s
alleged] statement or conduct were indilviduals with potential legal claims who
Kassab sought to represent in barrMatry suits against Pohl. These were Kassab’s
potential clients to whom he offered the kind of legal services he provides.” Id. at
579. i
The acquisition of clients and filing of lawsuits are actions “taken and
communications madeo to facilitate the rendition of legal services” and are protected
by the attorney imlmunity doctrine. Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 682. Because Pohl’s
claims againsti Kassab are “based in part” on that conduct (Pohl’s Pet., par. 29), the
attorney immunity doctrine applies, and Pohl’s claims are barred as a matter of
law. See id.; Highland Capital Mgmt., 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 442, at *16; Sacks v.
Hall, No. 01-13-00531-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12570, at *30 (Tex. App.—
1 This is the law of the case. No matter how Pohl wishes to characterize the facts, he cannot escape
the court of appeals opinion and renderings in this case.
18
Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (attorney not liable to third
party for filing confidential medical records because the filing of the records did not
constitute an action “foreign to the duties of an attorney.”); Bradt v. West, 892
S.W.2d 56, 72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (“an kattorney does
not have a right of recovery, under any cause of action, againsCt another attorney
arising from conduct the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his
duties in representing a party.”) (emphasis added). i
III
CONCLUSION & PRAYE e R
For the reasons set forth herein and inu the initial Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and The
Kassab Law Firm respectfully requesta the Court to sustain the objections made
herein and grant this Motion for Summary Judgment, ordering that Plaintiffs take
nothing in their claims againste Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kassab Law
Firm. f
Respectfully submitted,
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM
i / s / Lance Christopher Kassab
i LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB
o Texas State Bar No. 00794070
lance@kassab.law
DAVID ERIC KASSAB
Texas State Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law
1214 Elgin Street
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: 713.522.7400
Facsimile: 713.522.7410
19
ATTORNEYS FOR LANCE
CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND THE
KASSAB LAW FIRM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
instrument has been forwarded to all parties pursuant to thte Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on this the 1st day of August, 2021. i
/ s / Lance Christopher Kassab
Lance eChristopher Kassab
20"