assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
1181,67,"Kassab's motions repeat arguments previously considered and rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise"
1182,67,The jury verdict is supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence
1183,67,Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures — constitutional minimum requirements prevent pro forma new trial orders
1184,67,Walker is a self-professed perjurer and extortionist who first tried to extort Pohl for share of judgment; Pohl refused; Walker then approached Kassab to sell testimony
1185,67,Walker gave testimony in 2018 on the two topics at issue consistent with his 2022 testimony in this case — demonstrably untrue that he reversed course
1186,67,Kassab did not disclose to Court during mistrial request that Walker approached Kassab offering to sell testimony to undermine judgment
1187,67,Kassab waived Q2 objection — charge conference transcript shows counsel stated 'Not to Number 2' when Court asked for objections
1188,67,Kassab also waived Q3 objection — he insisted on including wrongful conduct question at charge conference
1189,67,Kassab waived jury verdict inconsistency objection by not asserting before Court dismissed jury (Bryan v. Papalia)
1190,67,No inconsistency: jury could find Precision obtained information lawfully (while working for Pohl) but Kassab misappropriated through post-acquisition use/disclosure
1191,67,Attorney does not act as agent when fee contract is drafted or before it is signed; client does not own collection of contracts
1192,67,"Jury heard testimony about locked office above bank with security, workers understood confidentiality requirements"
1193,67,Kassab was willing to pay over six figures to access attorney-client contracts — inconsistent with claim information was publicly available
1194,67,Pohl's claims accrued no earlier than November 2016 when Kassab purchased confidential information; suit filed less than 2 years later
1195,67,Unlawful acts doctrine preempted by proportionate responsibility statute — Dugger found it 'no longer a viable defense'
1196,67,No Texas case law supports Kassab's claimed privilege to engage in trade secret misappropriation to expose wrongdoing
1197,67,No attorney-client relationship existed when Kassab used trade secrets for mass solicitation — cannot pre-date contact with prospective client
1198,67,"Rule 17.09 inapplicable because claim accrued upon acquisition/use of information, which occurred before any grievance filing"
1199,67,Judicial proceedings privilege applies only to libel/slander claims for communications in judicial proceedings
1200,67,Kassab only successfully obtained clients after purchasing Pohl's trade secrets for mass solicitation — prior public-information letters were unsuccessful
1201,67,"LaCore Enterprises dealt with fees from same proceeding, not other cases — Kassab was warned about mischaracterizing this case"
1202,67,Pohl's expert Zavitsanos applied blanket 10% discount to fees to account for unnecessary/unrecoverable entries
1203,67,Kassab involved in drumming up seven failed grievances against Pohl
1204,67,"Kassab publicized unreviewed grievance to TX AG, Harris County DA, Houston Chronicle, Texas Lawyer, and Bar President candidate — unprecedented"
1205,67,"Kassab secretly purchased Pohl's client files under guise of phony expert agreement, then lied to jury about its nature despite federal judge calling it purchase agreement"
1206,67,Kassab indemnified Favre against claims related to disclosure — demonstrating knowledge of breach of confidentiality
1207,67,Shepherd produced nearly half million pages of documents at Kassab's request
1208,67,Kassab concealed identity of who assigned barratry claims to avoid disclosing duplicative assertion in separate lawsuit
1209,67,Pohl has never been found by any adjudicatory body to have committed barratry
1210,67,Jury found over $2M in actual damages; $3M exemplary complies with TUTSA 2x cap
1211,67,Kassab's proportionate responsibility question improper — Pohl could not have misappropriated his own trade secrets under § 33.011(4)