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"