assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
693,40,"Pohl's testimony about ownership of trade secrets, possessory interest, and confidentiality measures is conclusory and constitutes improper lay/expert opinion"
694,40,"Pohl's references to representations by 'Precision' are too vague to identify who made them, failing the 'clear, positive and direct' standard for interested-witness testimony under Rule 166a(c)"
695,40,Pohl is not properly qualified or designated to opine on legal issues like trade secret status and ownership
696,40,State Bar grievance dismissals are irrelevant because outcomes of grievance proceedings are not res judicata in civil matters (Charles v. Diggs; Rule 17.03)
697,40,Pohl's statement about what he 'believes' is not competent summary judgment evidence
698,40,Zavitsanos fee report is unsworn and therefore inadmissible hearsay
699,40,Kirk Ladner testified that Precision owned the marketing and client lists (Ex. 1 at 44-45)
700,40,"Ladner testified Pohl never told him to keep information confidential (Ex. 1 at 232-35, 264-65, 500-502)"
701,40,"Ladner testified Pohl was splitting attorney's fees with Precision and contracts were a deceptive smokescreen (Ex. 1 at 77-79, 83-85, 94-95)"
702,40,"Ladner testified Pohl never told him to return documents, which belonged to Ladner (Ex. 1 at 133, 173-74)"
703,40,"Ladner testified Pohl committed barratry (Ex. 1 at 274-280, 285-86)"
704,40,Ladner testified BP claimants were clients of Precision first (Ex. 1 at 214-215)
705,40,"Ladner testified Helping Hands decided which law firms to refer clients to (Ex. 1 at 55-56, 62-64)"
706,40,"Seymour testified Pohl never said client lists were confidential (Ex. 2 at 96-98, 147-149, 221-222)"
707,40,"Walker testified marketing lists and initial screening forms were Precision's work product (Ex. 3 at 232-33, 237-242)"
708,40,"With objectionable evidence struck, Pohl has no evidence to support his claims"