The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-15-00174-CV
4745489
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/2/2015 1:01:03 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-15-00174-CV
LEVI MORIN § FILED IN
Appellant, § 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
v. §
4/2/2015 1:01:03 PM
§ THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
JEFFREY D. KYLE
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS § AUSTIN, TEXAS
Clerk
GRUBER, PLLC, §
Appellee. §
RESPONSE TO MORIN'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO NOTICE
APPEAL
AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
TO nm HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes Appellee, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, in
the above styled and numbered cause, and moves the Court to deny LEVI MORIN's
Motion to Extend Time to Notice Appeal and moves this Court to grant this Motion
to Dismiss Appeal.
A. Untiled Record and/or Reference Abbreviations
"District Court" refers to the case subject to this appeal that is pending before
Honorable Judge Stephen Yelenoski in the 201" District Court of Travis County,
Texas, Cause No. D-1-GN-14-003874; Law Office ofKleinhans Gruber. PLLC v.
Levi Morin.
"TCPA" refers to the Texas Participation Act.
"Amended Order; 03-05.15" refers to the Amended Order signed by the court on
March 26, 2015, arising from the District Court hearing on March 5, 2015, which
denied LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation
Act on various grounds, which is allachcd hereto and incorporated herein by
___________
reference as Exhibit A. .._____________
LiWI MORIN V. LAW OFFICI' OF KL.EINIIANS GRUBER, PLLC
RFSI'ONSF. /\ND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL. PAGEl OF 12
"Motion to Extend _ _ ; 03~23~15" refers to the page number and paragraph
number of the Motion to Extend Time to Notice Appeal filed by LEVI MORIN on
March 23, 2015, which is the subject of this Response.
"Motion to Strike; __ ; 02~18-15" refers to the page number and paragraph
number of LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC's Second Amended
Plaintiffs Motion to Strike or Deny Morin's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for
nonsuit or In the Alternative motion tor Continuance and Motion to Withdraw
Nonsuit and Motion for Sanctions filed with the District Court on February 1R,
2015, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as hxhibit B.
"Return Citation; 09~30-14" refers to the citation served on LEVI MORIN with
the District Court lawsuit, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit C.
"TCPA Pleading; 12-03-14" refers to the Refiled Motion to Dismiss filed by
LEVT MORIN on December 3, 2015, which was filed following the December 1,
2014 filing without exhibits or affidavits, as LEVI MORIN admits in his Motion to
Extend.
R. Factual and Statutory Background
1. On September 30, 2014, Nicole M. Hybner of Austin Process, LLC
personally served LEVI MORIN at the front door of his residence located at
190 I Onion Creek Parkway #3107, Austin, Texas 7R748 at 8:06a.m. with the
Original Petition and Request for Disclosure that initiated the lawsuit in
District Court that is the subject of this appeal. 1
2. On December I, 2014, the Monday following the 60 1h day deadline pursuant
1
Return Citation; 09-30-14.
"""'""'"·-~~----· ·"-"'-----''-------------~---
LEVI MORIN V. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBFR. PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL PAGF 2 OF 12
to TCPA~, LEVI MORIN alleges that he liled his TCPA Pleading, as defined
above, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. This filing was made
without any exhibits or aflidavits and therefore, lor purposes of meeting the
60-day deadline the District Court considered this to be no tiling at all~.
3. LEVI MORIN Missed 60-day Filing Deadline: December 3, 2014, LEVI
MORIN refiled his TCPA Pleading, this time, with exhibits and affidavits,
and therefore, this is the date the District Court considered the TCPA Pleading
to be untimely filed, and likewise, the District Court found no good cause to
extend this deadline beyond 60 days 4 •
4. LEVI MORIN Also Missed 60-day Hearing Deadline: Had LEVT
MORIN's TCPA Pleading been timely filed, Jtmuary 30, 2015 would be the
second deadline, which is the 60-day hearing deadline on his TCPA Pleading
pursuant to TCPA 5 -of which good cause was NOT found to extend the
2
PursuanLL(J Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 27.003(b), "a Motion to Dismiss a legal action under
this section must be filed not later than the 60th day aticr the date of service or the legal action."
3
" ..• the Court: I) Finds no good cause to extend the deadline for Morin to tile his motion to
dismiss; ... 3) Strikes the exhibits to Morin's motion to dismiss, which were f11ed aller the deadline
for Morin to file his motion ... " (Amended Order: 03-05-15).
4 !d.
' Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.004(a), "A hearing on a motion under Section
27.003 must be set not later than the 60th day allcr the date of service of this moti(>n ... "
LEVI MOll TN V, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRURER, PLLC
Rt'.SI'ONSF. AND MOTION TO DISMISS Al'l'EAL PAGI·:3 01' 12
h<:aring deadline past this January 30, 2015 1h deadlin<: 6 •
5. On Febmary 17, 2015, the District Court heard LAW OFFiCE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC's Motion for Continuance and the parties
agreed in open court that LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PLLC's presence was not necessary on Fcbmary 26, 2015 because the case
would merely be resent on February 26, 2015 to March 5, 2015.
6. On Febmary 26, 2015, the case was be announced by LEVI MORIN and
recessed/reset to March 5, 2015 7•
7. On March 5, 2015, the District Court began and concluded the hearing on
LEV! MORIN's TCPA Pleading and LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS
GRUBER, PLLC's Second Amended Motion to Strike or Deny Morin's
Motion to Dismiss and the responses and replies to those motions; the parties
objections; the evidence; and counsel's arguments. (Amended Order;
03-05-15).
8. On March 6, 2015, LEVI MORIN filed his Notice of Appeal.
9. On March 23, 2015, LEVI MORIN filed his Motion that is the subject of this
Response.
" " ... the Court: 2) Finds Morin did not set the hearing on his motion to dismiss within 60 dnys
after service of the motion. and did not meet any of the exceptions indicating the h0aring can be set
later than the 60'h d:ty ... " (Amended Order; 03-05-15).
7
Motion to Strike; 3-4:15-16 and 5:21 (a); 02-18-15.
Li'.Vt Mol\ IN V. LAW 0FFTCE OF KLEINHANS G!!Uill',!(, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
10. On March 25, 2015, lht: Di~tricl Court signt:d tht: ordt:rs rt:ndt:rt:d on March 5,
2015. Jd.
II. On March 26, 2015, the District Court signed amended orders as rendered on
March 5, 2015./d.
C. Appellate Deadlines Missed
12. March 6, 2015 l)eadline to File Appellate Motion for Extension has
Passed. As LEVI MORIN admits, TCPA deems a motion denied if the
deadline passes without a hcaringH. As no good cause extension was granted,
it is clear that Jtmmuy 30, 2015 was the deadline for the hearing on LEVI
MORIN's TCPA Pleading and it is undisputed that no hearing occurred on the
9
TCPA Pleading on or prior to the January 30, 2015 dcadline (Amended
Order; 03-05-15). Likewise, the motion is denied by opt:ration of law 10 and
a Notice of Appeal must be filed within 20 days 11 unless a proper Motion to
• "The TCPA deems a motion denied if the deadline passes without a hearing." (Motion I :2;
03-23-15): Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code~ 27.008(a), "If a court does not rule on a
motion to dismiss under Section 27.003 in the time pn:sctibed by Section 27.005, the motion is
considered to have been denied by operation of law and the moving party may appeal.
" •· ... the Court: l) Finds no good cause to extend the deadline for Morin to file his motion to
dismiss; 2) Finds Morin did not set the hearing on his motion to dismiss within 60 days after
service of the motion, and did not meet any of the exceptions indicating the hearing can be set later
than the 60 1h day ... " (Amended Order; 03-05-15).
10
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code~ 27.008(a), "If a court docs not rule on a motion t(l dismiss under
Section 27.003 in the time prescribed by Section 27.005, the motion is con~idered to have been
denied by operation of law and the moving party may appeal.
11
Tex. R. App. P. 26.l(b), " ... in an accelerated appeal, the notice or appeal must be liled within
20 days after the judgment or order is signed."
LEVI MflRIN V. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUIII':R, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL I' AGE 5 or 12
Extend time is filed within 15 days after the deadlineD. The 20' 11 day from
Januaty 30, 2015 ran on Febmaty 19, 2015, and the additional 15-day
deadline to file for an extension ran on Man.;h 6, 2015. Therefore, as LEVI
MORlN admits that, "if the written order states that there is no good cause for
extension, then Morin's right to appeal is lost retroactively." (Motion to
Extend 2:3; 03-23-15). The Order clearly states that there was no good cause
for extension and therefore, it is abundantly clear that this Court is without
jurisdiction to mlc on LEVI MORIN's Motion because it is outside the time
allowed to file a motion for extension to file for an appeal.
13. TCPA Pleading was Heard Outside District Court's Jurisdiction, on
Day 97. Although LEVI MORlN provides cites, LEVT MOIUN provides no
relevant cited support or case law for his interpretation that the District Coll!t
retained discretion until the District Court heard the motion, as long as it was
heard before Day 90. (Motion to Extend 3:1; 03-23-15). Furthennorc, it is
clear by counting days, that this case wasn't even heard until day 97, which
again, LEVI MORIN admits, is outside of the District Court's jurisdiction.
I d. As LEVI MOIUN continues to miss deadlines and drag this case on, later
requesting forgiveness for all the missed deadlines, LAW OFFICE OF
17
Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, '"The appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal il;
within 15 days aller the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party ... (b) Iiles in the appellate
C(lll!l a m(lti(ln C(lmplying ~J!!:.J~c::u:..::lc-'lc.:O.:..:.S:..o.(""b)'-"------------
LEVI MOl( IN V. LAW OFFICI·: OF KI.EINIIANS GRUBER, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPiiAI, PAOE 6 OF 12
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC continues to be more prejuc.lict: in pursuing
their lawsuit as witnesses and evidence become more stale and LAW OFFICE
OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC continues to accrue more damages by the
Yelp posting that remains posted to date. Tt is extrt:mdy unlikely that TCPA
would support any interpretation to allow a Defendant to miss deadline after
dt:adlint: and wntinuc to hold up the lawsuit by filing motions that stay
proceedings well after a motion has been denied by law. However, even if
this is the proper interpretation, as set out in more detail above, the District
Court did not hear this case until Day 97 (had LEVI MORIN's initial TCPA
Pleading been timely, which the District Court found they were not) and
LEVI MORIN fails to present any argument to support that the District Court
could retain discretion or jurisdiction following the 90111 day. Therefore, it is
clear that the District Court did not have discretion or jurisdiction to rule as no
good cause finding was made for an extension and likewise, it is clear that the
TCPA Pleading was ovt:rrulcd by operation of law and likewise;:, LEVI
MORIN fai kc.l to timely tile this Motion for Extension by tht: deadline of
March 6, 2015.
-=--~--~-....,----:· ..,______________ - - - - -
LEVI MORIN V. LAW OFFICE 01' KLEINHANS GRUilER, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DlSMlSS A WEAl, PAGE 7 OF 12
14. March 6 1h is Only Deadline, There is No Deadline Confusion. There is
no deadline confusion because both of LEVI MORIN's arguments because no good
cause was found for the extension of either deadlines and therefore, both arguments
resull in the same calculation of the deadline to file a motion to extend time to file,
because, as set forth herein, there was no finding of good cause for extension of any
of the deadlines.
D. No Good Cause for Extension of Appellate Deadline
15. Third Good Cause Extension Being Requested By LEVI MORIN.
As set forth above, relating to the TCPA Pleading on appeal before this Court, this is
the third time that LEVI MORIN is requesting a good cause extension based on the
same arguments that were already denied by the District Court 13 , and likewise, these
arguments for good cause for a third request for extension should be found to be
without merit and should be denied.
16. No Procedural Forfeiture-Deadlines Need to Be Enforced.
This is an appeal off of a denial of a Motion to Dismiss. If this appeal is denied,
LEVI MORIN still has a right to be heard in a full final jury trial and nothing has
been lost. LEVI MORIN attempts to argue that Texas law disfavors procedural
forfeiture but relics on the Sutherland v. Spencer case which is about whether a
13
Amended Order: 03-05-15.
---~--·-·······--··-··,.-·········--------------------
LEVI MORIN V. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRURF.R, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL PAGE !I OF 12
14
default judgement (that would dispose of an entire casc) • In the Sutherland case,
that court found there was no conscious indifference for missing the deadline to
answer because Texas prefers adjudication on the merits. !d. This case is still
pending in District court to be adjudicated on the merits; therefore there is no
procedural forfeiture. Furthermore, it is of greater importance, that deadlines such
as these, arc enforced in order for the rule of law to have any meaning/ 5 and
therefore, this Court should deny LEVI MORIN's third request for a good cause
extension of the time to file an appeal and should dismiss this appeal.
17. District Court Already Denied Good Cause for LEVI MORIN's Claim
"Effort to Reach Agreement" J.n District Court, LEVI MORIN attempted to argue
for good cause extensions of the other missed deadlines, by asserting the same
argument 1"-that he was trying to reach discovery agreements with LAW OFFTCE
OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC. LAW OFFTCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PLLC plead, argued and supported by evidence that LEVI MORIN was not making
any legitimate attempts and was in fact refusing to respond to LAW OFFICE OF
14
Surlier/and v. Spencer, 376 S. W.3d 752, 756 (Tex. 20 12).
15
"Our legal system is built around deadlines. Deadlines ensure the orderly pmccss of litigation.
If that tool is to have any effect, and the ruk ol'law any meaning, it must be enforced. q: Edwards
Aquifer Au/h. v. Chem. Lime, Lid., 291 S.W.3d 392, 403 (Tex.2009) ("Filing deadlines ...
necessarily operate harshly and arbitrarily with respect to individuals who tall just on the other side
of them, but if the concept ora filing deadline is to have any content, the deadline must be
enforced. Any less rigid standard would risk encouraging a Ia~ altitude toward filing dates."
(quoting United Srates v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 101, 105 S.Cl. 1785,85 L.Ed.2d 64 (19S5))). !d.
~" Motion to Strike: 3-4:15-16 and 5:21 (a); 02-1 S-15.
LEVI MORIN V. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL PAGE 9 OF 12
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC's t:mails sent on Janum-y 5, 2015 and January 28,
2015, which were inquiring: i) whether he was going to answer discovery served
45 days ago, if not, a hearing would be necessary; ii) a date on which discovery
would bt: providt:d, if not, hearing availability PRIOR to any setting on tht: Motion
to Dismiss 17 • It is clear that LEVI MORIN was not in pursuit of an "amicable
resolution," as he intentionally nt:vcr responded to either of these emai Is without any
explanation as to why he failed to do so, therefore this argument should be
disregarded tmd no good cause finding should be made.
E. Conclusion and Prayer
18. As LEVT MORIN admits, TCPA deems a motion denied if the deadline
passes without a IH:aring and that the deadline to file the notice of appeal was
February 19, 2015, making the deadline to tile tllC request for extension, Mm·ch 6,
20 I 5. As the District Court has found that no good cause extension existed for
LEVI MORIN's t~tilure to meet the past two TCPA Pleading deadlines relating to
this appeal, this Court should also find no good cause exists for extension of the
March 6, 2014 deadline to file a Motion for Extension of Time to Notice Appeal,
should deny this Motion tor Extension of Time to Notice Appeal and dismiss his
Notice of Appeal with costs being allocated to LEVI MORJN.
17 !d.
-~-----------· ..- -
LEVI MORIN V, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINIIANS GRUBER, PLLC
RESPONSE ANn MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL T'AGE100F12
R~sp~ctfully submiLL~d,
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUHER, PLLC
By::-:-:--:--~~4.~~----
Ki mbcrl y &:"'1\,J.IJflli
kim@lawoffic~ . g.com
State Bar No. 24062755
Keith L. Kleinhans
kcith@lawofficcofkg.com
State Bar No. 24065565
12600 Hill Country Blvd, Ste. R-275
Austin, Texas 78738
Telephone: 512.961.8512
Facsimile: 512.623.7320
···-·-··------,------,,--------,,----.....--·
LEVI MORIN V. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBFR,
------------·-
PLLC
..·---
RFSPONSF, AND MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL PAGE 11 OF 12
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I conferred with LcifO!son and he opposes this pleading.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a tme copy of this pleading was served on each attorney of record
or party in accordance with the Texas Rules o[ Appellate Procedure on April 1,
2015.
The Olsen Finn, PLLC
LcifOiscn
4830 Wilson Road, Stc. 300
Humble, Texas 77396
Telephone: 281 .849.8382
Facsimile: 281.248.2190
Email: lei[@olsonappcals.com
VIA ESERVICE
~----------·--------------------------
LEVI MORIN V. LAW (WFICE OF KLEINIIANS GRUBER, PLLC
RESPONSE ANn MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAl. PAGE 12lll'12
MAR-26-2015 16:36 P.002
Exhibit A - Page 001
No. D-1-GN-14-003874
Law Office of Kleinhans
Gruber, PLLC
201 st District Court
v. Travis County, Texas
Levi Morin
Amended Order on Motion to Dismiss
The Court has considered Morin's motion to dismiss; Kleinhans
Gruber's Second Amended Motion to Strike or Deny Morin's Motion to
Dismiss; the responses and replies on those motions; the parties' objec-
tions; the evidence; and counsel's argument. Based upon that considera-
tion, the Court:
1. Finds no good cause to extend the deadline for Morin to file his
motion to dismiss;
2. Finds Morin did not set the hearing on his motion to dismiss within
60 days after service of the motion, and did not meet any of the ex-
ceptions indicating the hearing can be set later than the 60th day;
3. Strikes the exhibits to Morin's motion to dismiss, which were filed
after the deadline for Morin to file his motion;
4. Overrules Morin's objections to the affidavits of Kimberly Klein-
hans, Martin Garza, and Michael Siegler;
5. Finds that Kleinhans Gruber established, by clear and specific evi-
dence, a prima facie case for defamation and business disparage-
ment based upon Morin's statement that Kleinhans Gruber "sen(t]
hung over 'associates' to court dates [Michael Seigler];"
6. Finds that Morin did not establish each element of an affirmative
defense by a preponderance of the evidence; and
7. Denies Morin's motion to dismiss.
Signed on March 261h, 2015, at Austin, Texas.
TOTAL P.002
Exhibit B - Page 001 2/18/2015 10:29:29 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-003874 D-1-GN-14-003874
LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC §
Plaintiff, §
v. § 201" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
LEVI MORIN, §
Defendant. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
SECOND AMENDED
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE OR DENY MORIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND
MOTION FOR NONSUIT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW NOTICE OF NONSUIT
AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, asks the court to sign an Order
Striking the Setting on LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss, sign an Order of Nonsuit without
prejudice, and sign and Order for Sanctions. In the alternative, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS
GRUBER, PLLC, asks the court to sign an Order of Continuance and Withdraw of Notice of
Nonsuit, as well as an Order for Sanctions.
A. Introduction
I. Plaintiff is LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC; Defendant is LEVI
MORIN.
2. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC sued LEVI MORIN on the following
counts: (1) business disparagement, (2) defamation, (3) defamation per se, and for
injunctive relief.
B. Facts:
Both Deadlines Missed for Filing and Hearing Morin's Motion to Dismiss
3. On September 24, 2014, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC filed
Plaintiff's Original Petition, Request for Equitable Relief & Request for Disclosure.
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, ET. AL PAGEl OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 002
4. On September 24, 2014, citation issued.
5. On September 25, 2014, Austin Process, LLC received a copy of Plaintiffs Original
Petition, Request for Equitable Relief & Request for Disclosure and citation for service.
6. On September 30, 2014, Nicole M. Hybner of Austin Process, LLC personally served
LEVI MORIN at the front door of his residence located at 1901 Onion Creek Parkway
#31 07, Austin, Texas 78748 at 8:06 a.m. with the Original Petition and Request for
Disclosure. See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
7. On October 28, 2014, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC served counsel
for LEVI MORIN with Requests for Admission, Request for Production and First Set of
Interrogatories. See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
8. 1st deadline missed by LEVI MORIN: On November 19, 2014, LEVI MORIN's
Response to Request for Disclosure was due. LEVI MORIN failed to respond until
February 13, 2015, nearly 3 months later.
9. 2nd deadline missed by LEVI MORIN: On November 27, 2014, LEVI MORIN's
Response to Request for Admissions, Response to Request for Production and Response
to First Set of Interrogatories was due. LEVI MORIN failed to respond until February
13, 2015, nearly 3 months later.
10. 3rd deadline missed by LEVI MORIN: On December I, 2014, the Monday following
the 60'h day (November 29, 2014 actually being the 601h day) to file a Motion to Dismiss
by LEVI MORIN pursuant to Section 27.003 of the Texas Participation Act (the "Act")
ran. In accordance with the Act, LEVI MORIN is limited, "not later than the 60th day
after the date ofservice of the legal action" (Date of Service: September 30, 20 14).
11. On December 3, 2014, counsel for LEVI MORIN filed LEVI MORIN's Motion to
Dismiss with exhibits. Although a Motion to Dismiss was filed 2 days prior, it failed to
include any of the Motion to Dismiss exhibits or evidence.
12. On December 22, 2014, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC filed a
Notice of Nonsuit.
13. On December 30, 2014, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC filed a
Notice of Address Change and Notice of Unavailability and on January 28, 2015, LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC filed an Amended Notice of Unavailability
which noticed counsel for LEVI MORIN that LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS
GRUBER, PLLC would be out of the country and unavailable for a setting on February
18,2015 through February 25,2015.
14. 4th and 5th deadline missed by LEVI MORIN: On January 30, 2015, the 60 111 day ran
from the date that LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss would have been timely filed
(December l, 2014). In accordance with Section 27.004 of the Act, "A hearing on a
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDEDISUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING. ET. AL. PAGEl OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 003
motion under Section 27.004 must be set not later than the 60th day after the date of
service of the motion unless
[11 the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing,
[21upon a showing ofgood cause,
[31 or by agreement of the parties
... but in no event shall the hearing occur more than 90 days after service of the motion
under Section 27.003 ... "
15. As required by Section 27.004, to date, there has been [I] no Travis County docket
conditions, [2] no timely finding of good cause by the court prior to running of the 60-
day deadline (January 30, 2015) and [3] no agreement by the parties to extend the 60-day
deadline to a 90-day deadline. The following email correspondence documents the same:
a) On January 5, 2015, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC sent the
attached email to counsel for LEVI MORIN requesting the following information,
attached hereto an incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C:
i) whether he was going to answer discovery served 45 days prior, if not, a
hearing would be necessary;
ii) a date on which discovery would be provided, if not, hearing availability
PRIOR to any setting on the Motion to Dismiss; and
iii) a follow-up request for a copy of the bar complaints that LEVI MORIN
filed against Kimberly Kleinhans and Michael Siegler (which were
automatically dismissed without further review) that counsel for LEVI
MORIN had repeated countless times, he was in agreement to provide.
b) On January 28,2015, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC sent the
attached email to counsel for LEVI MORIN requesting the same information as
requested in the January 5, 2015 email. Both the January 5, 2015 email and the
January 28, 2015 email were ignored by counsel for LEVI MORIN, attached
hereto an incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit D.
c) On Friday, February 13,2015, at about 9:00p.m., counsel for LEVI MORIN
unilaterally sent over a self-serving subset of documents never discussed but
solely of his choosing that are only beneficial to his case. Likewise, counsel for
LEVI MORIN unilaterally decided that the setting for his Motion to Dismiss
would be February 26, 2015, and there would be no time for any of LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC's motions that LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC had clearly noticed counsel for LEVI MORIN
would be necessary prior to any setting for a Motion to Dismiss, attached hereto
an incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit E.
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, ET. AL. PAGE3 OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 004
d) On February 14, 2015, upon receipt, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PLLC noticed counsel for LEVI MORIN of LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS
GRUBER, PLLC's conflict for February 26, 2015 and counsel for LEVI MORIN
refused to reschedule to a time and date which would provide proper notice of
setting to LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, attached hereto an
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit F.
16. On Febmary 17, 2015, this Court found that an announcement for LEVI MORIN's
Motion to Dismiss setting would be made on Febmary 26,2015, but that the case shall be
recessed to March 5, 2015, at which time this Court shall hear the issues surrounding
whether there is good cause to extend the time to allow the Motion to Dismiss past the
60-day deadline, whether there is good cause for discovery, et. al.
17. 6th deadline missed by LEVI MORIN: On February 26, 2015, the 90tl' day ran from the
date that LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss would have been timely filed (December I,
2014).
18. On March 5, 2015, it has been noticed that LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss is set for
hearing on the 97' 11 day following a timely filing of a Motion to Dismiss.
19. Likewise, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC seeks this Court's relief to
hear this Motion and award the requested relief, primarily that LEVI MORIN's Motion to
Dismiss be denied and fees or sanctions be awarded to encourage counsel for LEVI
MORIN will comply with rules and deadlines in the future.
C. Motion to Strike or Deny Morin's Motion to Dismiss
20. 4 Missed Statutory Deadlines: This Court should strike LEVI MORIN's Motion to
Dismiss setting as not being timely as counsel for LEVI MORIN has not missed just one,
but four critical deadlines as follows:
a. file and serve the Motion to Dismiss in accordance with the Texas Participation
Act (the "Act") as the deadline was December I, 2014 and it wasn't filed or
served with exhibits on LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC until
December 3, 2014.
b. set a hearing in accordance with the Act as the 60-day deadline was January 30,
2015.
c. request a good cause extension PRIOR to the expiration of the January 30, 2015
60-day dead! in e.
d. set a hearing in accordance with the Act, with a timely finding of good cause
within the 90-day deadline of February 26, 2015, as the Motion to Dismiss setting
is not set until March 5, 2015 (97 days after the filing of the Motion to Dismiss).
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, ET. AL PAGE40Fl2
Exhibit B - Page 005
21. No Good Cause For Extension of Deadlines: Additionally or in the alternative, LEVI
MORIN cannot show good cause for an extension of the January 30, 2015 60-day
deadline. In fact, counsel for LEVI MORIN has acted in complete contradiction to the
way one should act for good cause finding to be granted for the following reasons:
a. Counsel for LEVI MORIN has intentionally held up the litigation process by
making oral reassurances that he will provide documents and/or information
and/or dates that he has failed to provide as discussed. Please refer to January 5,
2015 and January 28, 2015 emails which followed up phone conversation
(referenced in fact section above) which are attached as Exhibit Din which LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC requests time and time again
whether LEVI MORIN is going to agree to respond to the discovery and if so, a
date in which it will be provided. Counsel for LEVI MORIN refused to respond
to these 2 requests until well after the January 30, 2015 60-day deadline, at which
time he unilaterally sent over a self-serving subset of documents, never discussed,
but solely of his choosing that are only beneficial to his case. Specifically,
counsel for LEVI MORIN's Febmary 13, 2015 email with this self-serving
discovery, clearly shows his intent was to delay proceedings to prohibit LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC from their right to request this Court
to allow discovery, "That [February 26, 2015 setting] will leave you with no
time for discovery even if the judge thinks you deserve it." Also attached as
Exhibit D.
b. Likewise, as counsel for LEVI MORIN has failed to comply with not one, but
four strict statutory deadlines set forth in the Act, this Court should not reward
LEVI MORIN for bad behavior of carelessly disregarding ALL deadlines by
allowing an extension that can only be granted with good cause.
c. Disregard of Local Rules: Furthermore, Counsel for LEVI MORIN's disregard
of the rule of Jaw isn't limited to disregard of statutory deadlines, he continues to
disregard local rules as well. Counsel for LEVI MORIN disregarded local rules
requiring counsel for LEVI MORIN to confer about settings and unilaterally
initially set this Motion to Dismiss for hearing on February 26, 2015, which
required the court to hear an emergency Motion to Strike/Motion for Continuance
due to counsel for LEVI MORIN's Jack of due diligence in setting this Motion
within the last 4 months, by the deadline, at a time that LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC can have adequate time to hire counsel and/or
prepare a defense for a dispositive setting that could potentially dismiss their
claims against LEVI MORIN and expose them to attorney fees.
d. 2 Missed Discovery Deadlines: Furthermore, Counsel for LEVI MORIN's
disregard of the mle of Jaw isn't limited to disregard of statutory deadlines and
local mles but to disregard of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure concerning
discovery. LEVI MORIN failed to respond by November 19, 2014 to the Request
for Disclosure included with the Original Petition. Additionally, LEVI MORIN
failed to respond by November 27, 2014 to the Request for Production, Request
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINIIA.c'iS GRUBER. PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDEDiSUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, ET. AL. PAGE5oFI2
Exhibit B - Page 006
for Admission and First Set of Interrogatories served on October 28, 2014.
Counsel for LEVI MORIN improperly argues that his Motion to Dismiss places a
hold on discovery, however, this is misplaced as his Motion to Dismiss and
exhibits weren't filed until December 3, 2014, days following the discovery
deadlines.
22. Pursuant to Texas Participation Act Section 27.003, "in no event shall the hearing occur
more than 90 days after sen,ice of the motion under Section 27.003." The hearing on
this matter is on the 93'd day, therefore, even with a finding of good cause, this hearing
is after the 90' 11 day. which is clearly in violation of statutory law, requiring that the
setting be stricken. The "recess" that occurred on February 26, 2015 was merely
procedural in an attempt to circumvent the black letter of the law that clearly states a
hearing can't be after the 90th day. All case law on the issues only allows a decision to
be made within 30 days of a hearing that was at least started within the 90th day. The
fact that this hearing wasn't even started on the 90-day deadline of February 26, 2015,
distinguishes this case from the case law, again, requiring the court to strike this Motion
to Dismiss because a hearing had not began within the 90-day period.
23. For these reasons stated above, this Court should strike LEVI MORIN's Motion to
Dismiss setting from the docket.
D. Motion tor Nonsuit
24. On December 22, 2014. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC filed a
Notice of Nonsuit that in accordance with Texas Law, should immediately nonsuit this
case as there were no prior counterclaims on file as of December 22, 2014, that would
otherwise prevent this case from being nonsuited without prejudice.
25. The Texas Participation Act (the "Act") motion to dismiss is predicated on a review of
the merits of the lavvsuit. All other claims that are predicated on a review of the merits of
the lawsuit. absent a clear counterclaim, can be nonsuited in full by the
Plaintiff Therefore, a nonsuit renders the merits of the case moot. UTMB v. Estate of
Blackmon. 195 S.W.3d 98, I 01 (Tex. 2006). The nonsuit is effective as soon as the
plaintiff files a motion for nonsuit. Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Tex. 20 II).
26. The only relevant case to the contrary was decided following the date that this case was
filed and therefore doesn't apply. Rauhauser v. McGibney, No. 02-14-00215-CV, 2014
WL 6996819 (Tex App.-·Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2014, nph) (TCPA rnotion survives
nonsuit). This case was tiled on September 24,2014 and the Rauhauser case was decided
on December 11, 2/J14. Had LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC known
at the time of filing that this case couldn't be nonsuited if their caseload and personal
circumstances prevented them from prosecuted this case, LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC would not have filed this case at the time.
27. Likewise, this Court should sign an Order of Nonsuit, finding that the nonsuit date of this
case was the date of Notice of Nonsuit of December 22,2104, and strike the February 26,
2015 setting from the docket.
7L-AW--:0:-F-FI_C_E_O_F::K-L-El·N--!!-AN-S-G:::R-C.BER. PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING. ET. AL. PAGE60F 12
Exhibit B - Page 007
E. In The Alternative to Paragraph D,
Motion for Continuance and Motion to Strike Notice of Nonsuit
28. LEVI MORIN's intentional delay has cost him to miss to deadlines imposed by the Act,
and likewise, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC is only requesting a
continuance/resetting and discovery and striking of the Notice of Nonsuit in the event
that this Court finds that LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss should not be stricken or
dismissed based onmis;,ing said deadlines or based on the court's own discretion.
29. This continuance should be granted because LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PLLC is entitled to discovery pursuant to The Texas Participation Act Section 27.006(b),
"on a motion hy a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause,
the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion."
30. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC has good cause for discovery prior to
the Motion to Dismiss setting so that LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC
has evidence that is only in LEVI MORIN's possession to defend the Motion to Dismiss.
Such relevant discovery is of any evidence supporting that LEVI MORIN's statements
posted on Yelp about LAW OFFTCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC are false.
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC is entitled to discovery of any
evidence supporting that LEVI MORIN knew they were false (for example, LAW
OFFTCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC needs discovery ofthe billing statements in
LEVI MORIN's posc;ession thut show ell the work perfom1ed on his case and which
document the hourly rate bilku was not S400 an hour as he held it out to be, but rather
$350 an hour).
31. October 28, 20 I 4, weli bdorc LEVI lVIORfN filed his Motion to Dismiss, LAW OFFICE
OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC LEVI MORIN has been in possession of discovery
for over 4 months. LEVI r.,1()R fN failed to respond by November 19, 20 I 4 to the Request
for Disclosure included \\'ith the Orig;nal Petition. Additionally, LEVI MORIN failed to
respond by November 27. 2014 to the Req1.1est for Production, Request for Admission
and First Set of Interrogatories served on October 28,2014. On February 13,2015, LEVI
MORTN provided extremely limited and self-serving responses and production. In fact,
for all discovery requested which is "discovery relevant to the motion" (as set forth in the
Act as being the type of discovery allowable), is followed by a response from LEVI
\10RIN that. "The Act doesn't entitle the finn to this information yet." One such
example i·· Reque<l for Production No, I, "Each and every written Statement or
Document in your possession concerning the Incident that you allege supports your
allegations lhat your Ycip review was true or SLtbstantially true." LEVI MORTN responds,
"The Act doesn't entit:c the ilrm to this inlom1ation yet." However, for each response,
LEV! MORfi-1 !;Jib: to rcfcrertCC;! any secriDn of the Act that supports such response.
32. Furthermore. in open :court on February 17, 2015, when questioned by the judge, counsel
for LEVI MORIN admittcrl there was discovery in his possession not yet provided that
would be bene1iciai if not necessary for LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PLLC's respons;;: to his \1otlon to Dis1niss.
LAW0FFlCE OF KtEINllA~S GRUBER. PLLC V. LE\'l ivlORlN
SECOND AMENDEO.-'Sli?PLEMH!Tt:D l·.r!CflON TO STR!KE SE.'lTJNG. ET. AL. PAGE 7 OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 008
33. Therefore, only under this limited situation set forth in the paragraphs above, does LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC motion for discovery to be able to prepare a
defense for LEVI I\10R IN's dispositive Motion to Dismiss and for Fees requesting that
this Court order LEVI MORIN to remove objection and respond to Requests for
Production Nos.: 2-4, 6-7, 12, 14, 17-28, and Response to First Set of Interrogatories
Nos. I, 3-~L and 11-IJ.
34. Likewise, this Court should grant a continuance to a time that LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER. PLLC is available for a setting and should allow discovery as
properly served on counsel for LEVI MORIN on October 28,2014. 1
F. Motion for Sanctions/Fees
35. It may be necessary for LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC to secure the
services of counsel. licensed attorneys, to prepare and litigate this suit in connection with
this Motion.
36. Additionally, LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC files this Motion for
Sanctions pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and respectfully
shows the court that on December 3, 2014, counsel for LEVI MORIN served a Motion to
Dismiss that certified in the certificate of service was served on LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC on December l, 2014, but which according to records in
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC's system 2 , it wasn't served on LAW
OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC until December 3, 2014.
37. Furthermore, the purpo;;e of sanctions is to secure compliance with the discovery rules, to
deter violation of the discovery rules by others, and to punish parties for discovery
violations. If the party against whom sanctions are being sought cannot show due
diligence, a coun may award to a prevailing party all costs for inconvenience,
harassment. and om-of-pocket cxpcn~cs incurred or caused by the subject litigation. Tex.
Civ. Prac. & R<:m. Code§ I 0.002(c). The Court should grant this motion because counsel
for LEVI MORIN has inientionally delayed these proceedings with the intent to prohibit
LAW OFFICE OF KLfiNHANS GRUBER, PLLC from their right to request this Court
to allow discovery ;·.s c:et forth i:1 paragraph E above.
38. The Court should gr:mt this Motion for Sanctions under its inherent power to sanction
pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 15 because LEVI MORIN has used his access
and control or docnmcnts to produce only a selt:serving subset of responsive documents,
while withholding virtually everything else that could be damaging to is unfounded
claims set l~'1rth in his ~1otion to Dismiss.
1
To be clear, LA IV OI'FJCE Of KU:.INHANS GRUilER, PLLC is only requesting discovery in the event this
Court finds a) goc•d c:::us{; cxis!s l(,r ;;n ..-:xt(':nsit,n ofboth 60·tlay p1~riods and b) a good cause extension can be
granted following til.::: c:· piratiDn ~_,~- ~l~ ~J' the (:0-day pcrinds .
.,...---,---.....,-:·--- · - - - - -·--·-- ·------------------
LAW OFFICE OF KLEJNHA:\S GRLBf:tC PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDEDrSUPPLSMl:'n E!J MOTION TO STRIKE SEITING, ET. AL. PAGES OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 009
39. The Court should award attorney fees and expenses for preparing this motion, in addition,
the court should impose the following sanctions: monetary sanctions, striking the
pleadings, striking LEV! MORIN's Motion to Dismiss setting, award of attorney fees for
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC to hire counsel to defend against the
Motion to Dismiss claims, limit testimony about the document or the issue, and/or any
other sanction that the court deems to be in the interest of justice.
40. Likewise, this Court should strike LEVI MORIN's Motion to Dismiss setting and order
nonsuit of this case effective December 22, 2014 and order fees/sanctions for all the
pleadings and increase of cost of litigation caused by LEVI MORIN in the interim.
41. Alternatively, if this Court tinds that LEVI MORIN did not miss I or both of the 60-day
deadlines imposed by the Act, that this Court allow continuance, discovery, striking of
the notice of nonsuit and order fees/sanctions for counsel LEVI MORIN's lack of due
diligence in dealing with discovery matters.
42. For these reasons. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC asks for this
Court's relief.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC
leinhans
kim@lawo ceofkg.com
State Bar No. 24062755
Keith L. Kleinhans
keith@lawofficeofkg.com
State Bar No. 24065565
12600 Hill Country Blvd, Ste. R-275
Austin, Texas 78738
Teleohone: 512.961.8512
Facsimile: 512.623.7320
--~--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWOFFICE OF KLEINIIANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORL'i
SECOND AMENDEDjSUI'PLI'Mf,NTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING. ET. AL. PAGE90F12
Exhibit B - Page 010
VERIFICATION OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCF.
STATE OF H;).'...AS §
§
COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
ON THIS DAY pcr><•nully np[>earcd Khnbcrly G. Kleinhans, who, after b~ing placed
under oath, stated the following:
"T have read th<1 above Motion for Continuance and every statement is within my
personal knowledge and is true and correct."
Kimberly
0R. \~~s-QO"'
Not Public
LAW OFFICE OF !C. FTNt.r \NS ur.:_·is'~i~, PLLC \/.LEVI MORIN
SECOND AMENDal/S:JPPLEMfoYrc D MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, ET. AL PAGE 11 OF 12
Exhibit B - Page 011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a tme copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on Febmary 18,2015.
The Olsen Firm. PLLC
LeifOlsen
4830 Wilson Road, Ste. 300
Humble, Texas 77396
Telephone: 281.849.8382
Facsimile: 281.248.2190
Email: leif@olsonappeals.com
VIA ESERVICE AND FACSIMILE
LAW OFFICE OF KI.ElNIIA~S GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORL'<
SECOND AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTED MOTION TO STRIKE SETTING, Er. AL. PAGEI20F12
Exhibit B - Page 012
,:7;-:p)AVIi
........... OF
.....__SERVICE
-~-·--- _
201at Judicial Dlotrlct eoJrt
!
Pl~intitf:
Law OffiG·;t .~: t :~~,:, ·.!I
vu.
Dofendar.'·
Lflvl Mor••··
For;
LawOfftv:. •.• ; ,.·,:.
iOO Lavcc.: ~ ;~,.
Suite 1qO'
Aust!n, ·(;- · ·· ·:'
Racaived :·~... •\p·:\i~~:
Onlor, c~ .. ,_.;,_ .· /(. ,·:::·.· : _,.·.
·. :. '.''':'''~_:,''~;,,or September, 2014 at4:10 pm to bll served on l.evl Morin, 1901 j
<:, .;·)·"' •l~d say that on !he 30th day of Soptembar, 2014 at 8:06am, 1: I
I~IOIVIP•.I!' · ·: ,,,., .. :· ,.. ., · . ·/··'"' ::.!<Ito and correct copy ollhe Citation, Plaintiffs Original Petition,
Roq110~t :·.,,. '''"'~''·' '· · · ·· ·:. ,, . ,·,·w· ''~· C•l~cloauro with Civil Cllsc lnfonnatlon Shaot with the date of
service,.,~,,, ··. · .• ·. . .. ,, · '''.-''.'• «t the address ot. 1901 Onion Creak Parkway #3107, Au&tln,
lX 78748 ...... ,,, '"'' · ···• ::-. ·':co~ss, LLC, end informed said person of the contents therein, In
compli;\f"'·> ·" -':·· .:.:.
I certify tl:;:r I ,.. •··· ··. •· · ·,,,<! •'1ind, have no Interest in the above acUon, and am a Certified
Prc-r.c::u~ ~.~.-:·,_. • ;•. ·':.: ·:/;cult in w~lch lhe process w~s delivered. The fac1s stated In this
affadav•' , ... , ., .... •·• ., ..: __: ·ind dr~ :ruo and COt'Tect
Subscrib~·~:: _, ... _. ·:>~,.:. · ,•'•. :~:·-::.·I::~!
of Septer:: ... . -·.·,:;:. SCH-9631, Exp. 4/30115
known 1-:> r.·":
'"-::>2..+.::.. / ,. Auslln Procou LLC
809 Nuoces
~RY·,,;;c Austin, TX 78701
(512) 480-8071
Ou>' Job S~rial Numbe1: MST-2014003433
r;:,,,,
~;G v. Morin
-: .._. -;-,'·
,._ .... ,·;
.\
Ill 1111~11" /Ill 1111
7013 2250 0001 3659 4138
. :• ...
··'
..
. .·-
Exhibit B - Page 013
: .. .,
. {~if.Olsen
....... . • ·-."! ::' .• ~
........ ·-;.- · 4830 Wilso;R.oad, Suite 300
•.
· .....
•f:~ :.. • .
•""!.
. ·. ~--· ... ·Hurn.ble,-rikas 77396 .
,.
: ' . ~.,
...
E';Complete items ·1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Sign<~tu:c
item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. 0 Agent
w. Prinryour name and address on the reverse X
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Pn'nted Name)
rn Attach this card to the bacl< of the mail piece,
or on the front if space permits.
D. Is delivery adllres5 different from item ! ? Yts
1. Article Addressed to:
!t YES, enter deliVel)• address below: 0 No
Le; 0 0\.:, ~ill
~ o3 ow: \s."11 fZ.d ·
sie._). oD
ftvlfVI\o\e ,IX. 1--=t?, 1 ~ 0 Priority Mall Express·~
D Retum Receipt for Merchandise
0 Collect
2. Article Numbet~
(Transfer from S 7013 2250 0001 3659 4138
Exhibit B - Page 014
-----~------- -----------~--'----,-------'-----
LAw OFFICES OF KLEINHANS GRUBER. PLLC
Keith L. Iaeinltnm; Kimberly G. !Oeinhans
· k~ith@l:rwofficeofkg.com Jcim@,lawoffi~eofkg.com
. '
'
LAW OFFIC."ES OF KQ, PLLC
Bc:t: Cavc:'s.AUdn:ss: Mailing Address:
12600 Hill Country _Bh'd_, Suite R-275 ' 700 Lavaca St, Ste. 140'0
Am.1in. Texas 78738 • Au;1in, Tex~ 7870 I
-----~Tel: 5!2.961.8512 .- Fnx: ·Si2.623~73:io- -
. ' .. ~. '
wWw.laworficeotkg.cam
. October 28, 2014
'· ..
LeifOlsen · .,
. 4830\Viis~n'.!Zoa.d, Suite 300
. Humble, Texas 77396
Telephone Number: 281.849.8382 ....
Facsi~ile: No
Fax Number E~ists . ,· ..
.· .
- •
...
Email: leif@olsonappeals.com .
. :. _.. ~ . . . VIA. CMRRR# 7013 ~250 0001 3659 4138 . ..: :
,ANJ)EMAIL ''f.
. ..
•. .' . . ' . .... .
-~- ....
_.
RE: .. CAUSE N6. D-1-GN-14-003874; LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC v. LEVI .. ..
. ·lvlORJN; IN THii20 1ST J UOICIAL DISTRICT COURT, IRA VIS COUNTY, TExAS'
•.· Deaf ML 01seil: : · .
·Enclosed, pleas.e find t11e following d~cuments:
•\ : .· :
. ·.
• .·Law Office ofKiei1Jhm•s Gruber, PLLC's First Requests fo~ Admissien·to Levi Morin;-
; • Law Office oi'Kleinhans Gruber, PLLC's First Set oflntertogatories to Levi Moritl;
• . Law Office ofKleinhtms Gruber, ~LLC's F.irst Requests for. Production to Levi Morin~
· Should yini. have any trouble receiving ihe,Se documents, please do nbt hesitate to ~ontact me
directly. · · · · '
., ...
.. .
·.~·.··
. ··.
. ..
1-
. ··.
@ J=Vi,;
Paral~gal to Kimberly G: Kfeuilians ..
.
' .'
-~-
.,
·'
. ·..
~ ...
Exhibit B - Page 015
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-003874
LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Iq.EINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, §
Plaintiff, §
v. § '201" JUDICIAL DISTRICT'
§
LEVI MORIN, §
Defendant. § , TRAVIS COUNTY; TEXAS
•'
. '
' FlRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO LEVI MOIDN
To: LEVI MORIN;· by and through their attom~y· ofrecord, Leif Olse~, 4830 Wilson Road;
Suite 300, HUJnhlc, Texas 77396.
-~ ..
COMES NOW, LAW OFFICE OF KLErN.HANS GRUBER, PLLC, Plaintiff, and makes
the attached 'reques\ tor ~drn•s,ion and serve's th~m .on LEVL MORIN, Defendant, p~tsuant to.·
·. Tex. R: Civ.P.'J98; and respectfully requt;sts that you admit the truth, of each of-the' matters set
•·'· forth hereinbelow. Your response to th~se requests must eit~ef. sp~cifically: and s~parately admit
~~ ..
·~ ·..
or deny each ofthe matters set .otit below or explain in detail the.· reasoi)s ~hy you cannot
truthfully
. . admit or deny sucll m:1tt~r. Each ~(the
. .
matters· set. forth below
. .
will. be.admitted by you •'
' '
l.!n.less, within thirty (30) days after service· of this ·~equest, you mak~ and serve on Plaintiff's
' .
'·· ;
~ounsel a written re.sponse tc\these matters as required
.
by Tex. R. Civ. P.·l98, . .·;:. ·.
·:. ... :
: -1'. ,.;·
: .. !- •.... .·
. ·."·
. ·.·.
'·
.·,.
..
: '·.
··.:·· ' ,.
. "
• oli.
•• ·.:.'
, ...
., '·.·· ..:
I; .
.·... , :·..
~-
LAW OFFICE OF KLHNHAl';S GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI !'viORIN
., ;-,
.. ·.. . .·
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO LEVI MORIN
., .
.. ~ '. .
.. ,
. .~".
--·~~-.. . .·: . . ·~ .
Exhibit B - Page 016
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF KG, PLLC
: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
By: -:::--cP~~~---'-----"-__:_-___:_:_~
Kim
Texa
kim@lawofficeofkg:com
Keith L. Kleinhans
Texas Bar No. ;24065565
keith@lawoffic~ofkg.com
;700 Lavaca, Ste. 1400
· Austin, TX 78701
':. · Telephooe:.5!2.961.8512
. ·r~similei 5!:2'.623.7320
-1· .
. ·_":
,.
CERTIFICATE Oli' SERVICE
I certify that a true copy.ofthe above ,_;.~s' sel'Vedon each atto~ey of rebord or p~rty in
accordance >vith the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on thr 281h day. of October, 20i4. ' ·.
·, .- .
.· LeifOisen . -I
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble, Texas 77396
Telephone Number: 281.849.8382
'· ',
Facsimile: No Fax NumberTxists
Email: leif@olsonappeals.corn .·-:
VI;\ CMRRH.If 7013 2250.00013659 4138 ·
AND EMAIL
~:
>~-- . < ·•
.-...
=-~
.
.,
.•. .
LAW OfFICE Of KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
. ADMISSION
FIRST R!:QUEST l'OR - .
TO LEVI
. MORll\1. . . PAGE20F5
: ·.. ·
.'
Exhibit B - Page 017
DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are defineil as follows:
a. '"Plaintiff' means LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC and all other natural persons
or business or legal entities acting or purporting to act for or on her behalf. ·
·.b. "Defendant" means LEVI MORIN, and all other natural persons or business or legal entities acting
or pcrporting to act for or on behalf of Defendant:. ·
c. '·Incident" or "Yelp review" as" that word is used.herein refers to the June,24, 2014 posting by
LEVI MORIN on an internet website called Yelp. .. .
d. "Person" means any natural person, any business, a legal or governmental entity, or~ ~sociation.
e. "Occupation" means a full,· accurate and complete description of the nature,· iype, title and
employment carried on by the pers.on inquired about; the name and address of their e!llployer; and,· ·
the date(sJ such occupation began and terminated. ·
f. '·Document" means anything which rhay be :~onsidered to be a document or tangibl~ thing within
the meaning of TEX. R. CIV. P. 193 and· tri.eans the original; or any copy' if the original is not .
available, of writings and tangible things of eyery kind .and description, and inCludes, but is not
limited to. any drawing; graph, photograph, film, video, phone record, report, minutes, t~anscript,
memorandum, notes, jotti'ngs, paper, tetter, correspOridence, .commuriic8tion, invoice,· Contr~Ct, ,
check, check stub, accowning ledger, chart, map; plat, tape, disk, card, wire and any other
electronic_. magnetic or mechanical recording or transcript of anY. other instrument qr deVice which
contains any information or from which imy "information can be .derived. or retrieved. The term
"document" also includes copies containing any information in addition to. or in any way different .. ·
from that contained in or on the original, and all attachments, enclosures or documettts affixed or
ret(m-ed to in any documents to be described pursuant to these requests.
g. ;•Relating"·. means concerning, ref~rring, des~dbing; evidenCing, or constitutine:, direCtly or
indircctiy.
h. "Statement" means :my written or graphic statements·sigoed or otherwiseadopted;or approved by·
the · person making it, <md any stenographic,. ·mechanical, electrical . or other nicordjng or
-transcription thereof, wrjch is a· substantially verbatim recital of an,oral.statement by the person
maki.ng it-and contemjJorarteously recorded. ··
"And" anrl "'or" shculd be construed as both conjunctive dod disjunctive as necessary to brmg
within the scope of the discovery request all response that might'otherwise· be construed to be
_outside vfits scOpe. . . . .
j. "You.·· "your'" and "yowsell" refer to LEVI MORIN ..
. . : ..
''Com;mmic.ationh mea11s the transmtsswn or exchange of infQ.nnation. betWeen ~o ·Or more
1
•
persons, oraily or in w1iting, through any document, a5 defined above, and incfudes, without· '· .
. lirnitatioi1, any c~:mv~rsadon or discUssions, whe~~r face-to-face, via telephone Jines Or data lil)es.
,.
-::-c-:~=-·""-· ---- ------·
LAW OFFJC:E OF KLElf-li-!A1'S GRLBEf( PLLCV. LEVi MORIN
FIRST REQUEST FOl-t ADMISSION -TC· LEVI '!vlORIN . . . . .·PAGE30FS·
.·. . i
....,.
:·_,.' .·
Exhibit B - Page 018
•
REQUEST FOR. ADMISSION
ADMISSION NO.1. On or around Jun~ 24, 2014. tlirough August 20, 2014, LEVI MORIN's
Yelp review was· posted online e0ntaining a statement that LEVI MORIN was billed at $400.00
an hour. -.
..
ADMIT/DENY NO.1.
ADMISSION NO.2. LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRljBER, PLLC did not bi.ll LEVI
MOR!N ~I $-100.00 Rn hour.
RESPONSE NO. 2. .•
ADMISSION NO.3. LEVI MORIN is in possession of the contract with LAW OFFICE OF
KLEINHA:~s GRUBER, PLLC. . .,
.i
or
... ADMISSION NO.4. On around June 24, 2014through Augtist.20, 2014, LEV!MORIN's
Yelp review ~untained falsestatemerits about LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS_ GRUBER,
PLLC. . · .
. .
'.·
ADMISSION NO. 5. LEVi MORIN's Yelp revie_~·con~ins false statements about LA 'w
OFFICE OF K I ElNHANS GRUBER, PLLC. .
RESPONSE NO. 5. ·
· ADMIS!:!i6:'1 r-10. (,,LEVI MORIN knew that the Yelp reviewc~~ined false statements. about
LAW OFfrCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC. '
. . :·.'.. .·. _ .
,.
. .
ADMISSlON NO.7. LEVl MORIN posted the Yelp review with intent to cause financial harm
to LAW OFF \CE Of KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC.
LAW OFFiCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMiSSIQN TO LEVI MORiN. - . . -PAGE40F5
· .... - .· ' ....
Exhibit B - Page 019
HESPONSE NO.7.
ADMISSJ001 l'X>. S.·LEV! MORiN posted the Yelp review with intent to cause reputational
harm to Lf, W OPI .. ICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC.
RESPONSE NO. 8.
,;;
·.··..
',. ·.·.
-:'-=:--::-:::::-:: · - - · :::-c:-:-:-:-::::-::::::=::=-::::-:-:::-:-:-:-:::-'::-:-=::-=----'--,.-~~....::....,_,..,..._ __
LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER; PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
FlllST REQI lEST FOR ADMISSION TO LEVI MORIN PAGES OF 5
.. · ..
·:.·.
.·;_. .
.-:~· . :::
... :
..
·:}
Exhibit B - Page 020
CAUSE NO. D-1.-GN-14-003874
LAW Ol''F\Cl<: OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
KLEINHANS GRUBER,'PLLC, §
Plaintiff, §
v. § 201" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
LEVI MORIN, §
Defendant. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
'
FIRST ~3ET OF INTERROGATORIES TO LEVI MORIN
To~·_. LF.Vl MORIN; by and through their attorney of record, LeifOlsen, 4830 Wilson Road,
Suite 300, Humbie, Texas 77396. ·
COMES NOW, LAW OFFICE. OF KLEINHANS GRUBER; PLLC, Plaintiff, and serves
LEVI MORf?-l, Defendant with this First Set of Interrogatories pursuant to TEX. CIV. P. 197 . R~·
.· . '
lnterrogalori~s drc to be answered by you separately andfully in writing under. oath. Your
answers to the interrogatories are to be preceded by the. particular. Interrogatory· t6 which the
answer pertains. ''
The interrogatory answers ate to be signed
. under·oath :and
.. verified by the
' .
person making them. You are to serve your answers and objections, if any, ·upon [A W OFFICE
OF KLEiNUi\l'\S GRUBER, l'LLC within thirty (30) days after you receive· these discovery
. i.
requests at the offtcc of LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER; PLLC's counsel, whose
address is sel !~orth be-!O\\i.
You nre tl(ivised thai it is not a ground.for objettion that an Interrogatory involves an
opinion or oontention th"t ·relates to factor application of law.. to·
' ' . fact..·. Tex: R. Civ. P. 197.
-
Yoti
. are (uither adv iscu that an evasive or incomplete answer is to QC. treated as .a failure to answer or
I • • t. ' •
respond. You are expected to supplement your answers and responses in ·accordanc;e with,TEX: ·
' . . .
R. CIV. F. bJ. ·~f you fnil w answer these interrogatories as setforth above, and in ai:coroance
with TEX. iz. C.W. P. i 97. LAW OFFiCE OF .KLETh!HANS GRUBER; PI;LC. may move for
--'---·---··---~---,-'c--,.--,.-.,...,.---~~-----.,...---:----.,.----
LAW OFTTCF OF KLF.!NHANS GRllllER. PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
FIRST S.CT ()f. [_-..: L~k~od..:::·,::\U~S In LEV; r.•
iORI\1 PAGE I Of 10
. ·.·' . ·,,
··:
. '• :- ::.-.·-:-, .·.. ;__ ~_>:._ ...•
Exhibit B - Page 021
sanctions against you pursua!lllo TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF KG, PLLC
A ITORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
By: -:-::--:-i~~~-~---'---
Kimb I G. Kleinhans
. Texas r No. 24062755
' kim@lawoffic.eofkg.com
:Keith L. Kleinhans
:Texas Bar No. 24065565
keith@lawofficeofkg.com
. 700 Lavaca, Ste. 1400
. . Austin, TX 7870 I
Telephone: 512.961.8512
Facsimile: 512.623.7320
•.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
l ccni!)· Owt a true copy of the above was served on each attoi:ney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure on the 28'h day' of October, 2014. .
;,
LeifOlsen . ·-·.
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble, Texas.77396 ·..
~·
Telephone Number: 281.849.83~2
Facsimile: No Fax Number Exists
Email: le.if@olscn~ppc<.lls.com
VIA C!VffiRR# 7013 2250 00013659 4138
. AND EMAIL
i
----~--· ·-----~-~~-~~-~--~----~--~--~·~------
LAW 0FFrCE •lF KLf'IW{fiN> GR(lclER, PLLCV.' LEVI!vi.CR!N ·:·
FrRST$EToFINTERROGATORJEqo LEVIMORJN · 'PAGE20F 10
.,
• ..
. ,:'• ·' •'
Exhibit B - Page 022
DEFINITIONS
A; used herein, the following.terms are defineil as follows:
a. "Plaintiff' means LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC and all other natural
persons or business or legal entities acting or purporting to act for or on her behalf..
· b. "Defendant'' means LEVI MORIN, and all other natural persons or business or ·]ega! entities ··'·.
acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of Defendant. ·
c. "Incident" or "Yelp review" as that: word is used herein refers to the June 24, 2014 posting by·
LEVI MORIN on an internet website called Yelp.
d. "Person'-~ me;J.ns any natural persqn, any business, a legal or governmental entity, or an:.
association.
e. "Occupation'' means a full, accurate· ~d complete description of th~ nature, type, title arid'
c:npLlyment carrie,; on by the person inquired about; the name and address of their employer;
and, the dete(s) such occupation began and terminated.
f. "Document" means anything which may be considered to be.;;_ document or tangible ·thing within
the :o:eaning of TEX. R. C!V. P. ·193 and meims the 'original, or 'any copy if the original is not
available, of writings and tangible things of every kind and description,,and includes, but is not
limited to~ ~ny d.ra\\iing, graph, :p~~tograph, film, video, phOne r~cord? :r~Port, minutes, transcript,
memorandum, n:otes,: jvttings, paper, letter, correspondence, commuriication, invoice,. ·contract,
check, ched.;: stub) accounting ledger, chart, map, plat, tape, disk, ·card, wire and·.llily other··
~teuronic, magnetic or mechanical recording or transcript of any other instrumen~ or device
which contains any infomiation or from which any information can be derived or t:"etrieved. · The:
term ''ducwneuC ulso includes copies containing any information· in addition to Ot:"· in any way_
different frcm that (:Ontained in or· on the original, and all attachments, enclosures or-documents
nfl1;\·~~:l ur rcfcri:ed to i11·any documents to be described pursuant to these_ requests.
g. "Rdniing'' means com.:cmilig) referring, describing, evidencing, ~r constituting, direCtly or
inc.iircc:tly ...
h. "StatcmcnC means P. ;1y 'Nritrcn or graphic statements ·signed or otherwise adopted or approved
by the>. person making it,. _and ·any. steriographic, mechanical, ~lectrical or other r~cofding or·
tr;:~nsc:i'iption thereof, ,~:hich is a substantially Verbatim recital of·an oral stateinent by the. person
rrnkir:g it and contempc•rancously recOrded. ' · · '
i. '·And'' u.nd "or" shC.uld be construed as both ·conjunctive. and·disj~~tive as neces~..;y ;o bring
~;·ithin the scope of the discovery request all response that .Ji'Iight otherwise be: construed to be
out;;itic of its ::;cope. -~·' ·
j. "Y NI,'' "vou:-'' and '·volJrse!P' refers
J •• ' • •
tO. LEVI.:NI6RIN. ·
' !' '-. ·: '
_. ."•
't~' • •.... ·l· I
k. "C;:-.r;~tt:,micaticJJ'' n::22ns the transrilissioJ~\9r "exc~ange of :infor~ation between twO or moTe
pc:·s'J"''' or<,iiy 0;· \r; r:riting,. l11rough any,fd.ocurrient, as defined abov.e, and includes, without
limiiaLioo. ai(Y cunVersatlun or discussions, Whether-face-to:...ra.Ce, via telephone lines· or. data lines .. .'
' ... • - > '
LAWOFFlCT -;;:-j~[;;~7fr~:;;$-(jR-tJB-ER, PLLC v. LfVI MORJN
FIRST SeT 0!: J; . ;:
. ::R!W:J,\TUlH!::, ru LEV! h1oRrN PAGE30F 10
...
.
',•
· •'.
.
'
. .
.. . ::., • ,· ..
·: .·,
Exhibit B - Page 023
I. '·Dl::.:.<.:J ..::./' if!;;tll1!, a d<;tui!t!d statement of all things relating to or affecting the particular subject
w > dose: rice<} inducing. but not limited to, times, dates and places and the names and complete
rna!lm~ :addrEsses-of any persons involved. ·With reference to do~uments, communications, and
agr·.~--~r:l::i-tlS, Lhc.: lcr~n ".J~sGribc" also includes a detailed statement of the substance of the facts
<l!ld opinions made rcfC.r.:.:nce to or stated in each document, commUnication or agreement.
m. "Id,..;ntii~/' 'l o a person mqans to state their agC:, full name, reSidential address and phoile number,
. bufincss .address and phone number, occupa~on and employer. ··
To a pllblie or private corporation, ~artnership, association, agency or other entity means
ro ~tale irs name, address, state of:;incorporation, if applicable, and maj"or :purpose ·or
buslnes~- activ!t:,v·.
b. Tn a statement means to identify ihe person(s) who made ·it, took it, recorded it, or·
received it; thC date and location· of where it was made; how it :Was recorded. or:
trans.cribCd and what machines Or instruments were used to record or transcribe it, if itny.;
the name(s) and nddress(es) o(any person(s) who was present duringthe making thereof,
c•' ·.rh hoc: pc:·sono! knowledge that it was made and,of its content(s); and, the name(s)
c:;d :·c'·.'···•:c;c'(os) o{any person(s) w~ presently has possession or last known possession,
. ctGlody or c011trni thercoi; .-;
•' To ;l d0cumt:nt means to .idenfir/ its date,· state 'its -g~~erar" contents-,- ·including,_ ·if
· app!iGabie, wi:c:>e, when ana how it was made, the name(s) and 'address(es) of the
pt:r:;en(s) \~.-tw n~_::de it, received i~ and who haS possession m: last kl!oWn_.pos_sesSion-,
'""tudy or wnlrcl of.sllch document, provided, hO\yever,:that answers fo interrogatories .
rcqucsling identifications_ or desctiptions of certain communications or:_document~ ·may
1:,.:: satisilcd by attaching a true and eorrect coPy of any written documents, as described
iH::rei!J. cun!aiHin:~ tile requested informatjorl; an"d. ' .
d. · To any other tangible thing means to give a detailed description thereof, inchiding, if
. applica~lc, wi1crc, .,vhen and how it was made, the name(s) and .address(es) of the
· f'C!.COn(S) •;;he' made it, and identifx WhO presently has :pOSSeSSiOn Or last known
pos:::ession, Gllstody and control of such thing.\ · ·
...
. ..
..... .
. .. ~
';,
LAW OFF!CF rJF KLL'TNHAl'S GRT!<lER, PLLCV. LEVI MORIN·.
FlRST SET or iNTER/-~!J:~ ..'I T(l:~r;;:~ -rn LEvr MORIN, PAGE40F 10·
. -'-~~
. ,_.
;.: .
Exhibit B - Page 024
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATtmV NO. l. State whether or not You have:
..
i\. Made a due and diligent search ·of all related documents, books, reports, memos,
photos and writings within your possession or under your control, jn order to obtain
informatinn wi1h respect to this action. If not, please explain why not.·
!3. !\-lade a due •mC diligent inquiry o.f yoUt-" employees, friends, relatives and those
pcrso"s a'.·llilabk tc assist ·you in .order to obtain information with respect .to this
aclion. f!' lHll. r~iu;'-:c expiain why no_t
INTERROGATORY NQ_,_}.,
State your full n~me, date ofbi;-t~, address and occupation; also state the name, address,
occupatio" and rdatirnrship to th,, pm1ies of each individual who' assisted the answering of these
. interroga1ories. · · · · · ·· '
INTERRO(;/,..TO~~y Ni.'}, .3, ·•
Please lbt uU sol:ial nd\v~r;.;.~~g .....-.;bsi.tcs, biogS, fo~·unis,.orchat.roo'mS, inCluding bJ,lt not limited
to ~accbo;:,f,.; ;\) ;Sj'JC<e, . i \iil\Cr, i"'ricndster, Oi·k~t, I:Ii5,_.fv!eetl]p:co~Jpoo,gle +, or_ Linked In, in
wh1ch yc,1 iT1V\·~ ,;.v~r pt.J~-:~·::,·; '.::rc:t.~cd or currently matntamla prpfile .o~·qser _tnfotm;atton, :
including, but not I i m ited to, those that contained or contains text mes~.ages, instant messages;· i ··
updates, w:: ii pu:·,f''· cmai !;. comments, links, status messages "or othel"'.jnfonilittion related to the
·claims or ck:fcnses made the basis _of this lawsuit.
..
·
INTERKOGATOF:Y NO. il.
Y.olir answer denie> rhc allcgution; contained in Plaintiff.s Original Petition; Are you, .. any · or
. ~gents or IJ;..:i.·snr::.. ~'"'.:i;ng '.>:1 your b~half, aware of any fac.t,!·~bservation, doCument, Or.item of
· evidence tha::, cilhe: directly '" ;ndirectly, supports ·your denial or otherw.ise contradicts the
allegations of the'Plaintift'! iC your answer is anything other than an unqualified''No,'' then for
· each anJ c:\''")' .·cuci: il!ct, ,:.!J.· :::nAion, docu.ment, and item of evidenc~,'please ~et forth the ·
follOwing inJorrnation ser.'1r.~te!y. specifically, and in detail:
.\. i·. ,:u:: i :;;ei '"" :ri;otio:1 or
the fact, obsei:vation,. document, ot .itetri. of. evidence,
sellir;L'· fcclh n2!Pc:. d:.J.tcs, times, places and any other information that might assist in
:h~ i.:i:..';<t<·:::~ion 2'id ic~~nt!onofthe subject inforination.
,.··LAW O?:·:r:r. '':' ": l.c· :,·I: hi'', CPUF\ER,. PLLC V. LEVI MORIJ:(
':. FIRST SET o;: 1~~ n:!-.F.:J~i.:, i"Cil.iE:S ·n, L ... \'! h'SO;'-l·N PAGE50Fl0
·'
.....
.. ·
·· .. ·· : ! . . ·•·
··.
Exhibit B - Page 025
H. iTe n nne ... nuress, telephone number or other means of identification of each
i'"''"" who has !'C>><.ession or first hand knowledge of the subject fact, observation,
d.n~ument. or item ol-· evidence~ and that person's relationship to parties he~e'in. th:
C. ; k ;;;cthod or manner by which you obtained knowledge of this information,
'"'tcing t<xth numcs, dates, times, places and any other details that relate to the manner
L1 \Vhich you obtaine:d such knowledge. ·
D. If the 'subject information i.s documentary, will you please, without a motion.to
rr;:>it''"' .• l!nc'; r: rcpy lo your answers to these interrogatories.
INTERRPZ; /.T\2.E.l::1:U.Li For each affirmative defense that you are ~;~sserting, please
identify the •kfc>r.r; "nd sptcifically set forth all of the facts and evidence that you intend to use
to suppm1 sncl! dc:-cnse; ,;1sc. for ''~ch suclt defense, identify all documents (by title, date,.author,
custodi:;,·, !c:d '' '"-'' ,.,.,,,,;zu''-'" oC cnnlents)-that yo;t intend to use to" support the defense, ~nd ·all
persons who have knowlcd;.•c ol tac•ts supporting the defense. Those perso.ns should be identified
by name, occnpatiun, address, title, relation to the parties herein and a description of the
informatio!: that ri:·.::y :111,;: ~o ;.~res~:nt. ·
INTE!UtUC~.:''l'Ci:£X.Ji_(). -:!,. With respect to allofthe documents that You have in Your
possessi<•n or under Yc•ur w,;i;·o! That are relevant to the InCident that forms ..i)te basis"()fthis
lawsuit, p[cr:sc idc;o:if:; th•)se.doc•umcnls that ai·e likely to contain the following info.rmaticin:.
documcnh i; P:n '"' ·> i, ? ()' ·''" tho: present that contain· infori)laticin that Yo.u allege suppm:t that
the stateme;.,t., <hat '"'''"k up the Junc'24, 2014 Yelp review of Law Office ofK!einhans.Gruber, PLLC
were tru;.:. J:.\..;:...:,;.~:;,;.;_ ;..':...:.L 1:cL i:1-r:;:.-2d i.O~ the documents that support your responses to Interrogatory No.7
below fvr ·~-~tell ~~r:d ~very st.;):;p~:rt:
'·''" typc:o or catego"ries of the d<Ycuments· (i.e: :Invoices, !'vlemo.s,
Rqy_n~~- Ct)iltO:{.;(~ !:.r:1aih, Letters, etc.) involved,· and the approximate number of
·-.:-a<::.h t :<~(·.
. . .
i>. Picase indicate the location of
the documents and the type of sto.rage tha£'ccnitains
•hem '; ·'' I cgrd or Letter Size File Drawers; ·Lateral Drawers, Boxes, etc.}: Also,
oic:>s(; llldicate the number of storage units that contain the doc1,1merits.
• T , .
C. Please identify those p01ti~ns of the requested d~cumen~ that are .computerized, or
kv:;:i n• ~,;,y (1\h:;- ,:igiud, upticai or.e1ectr0nic foi·mat and indicate whether the Origin!3.l
<:l!~ri~.·:~ ·/.:,:;n: :._;,;;.·.r;p-.::-:1 typl,.;J by hluid) Dr ~ntercd by way ofvoi~~ reco~ition software.
.\')_ S::i :,.,.,;-, lik •J;::nc:,, ;;ddresses. and relatio.nships to ·the parties of all persons from
wh;_1m ,,,,;!len st:t'•:ments concerning thci, subject incident [or accident] have bee·n ·
>!'c .. ,tc th>- r.late thnt each stateJrtent was taken and. the person .who. no.w
pn.;;S(':"',~-C."- H.
-'c--'-'~-·
LAW OFFICE ul" c< 1 ·,:i·Vi/<1 ,.: ( ii<;:·,;a:. PLLC V. LEVI MORiN .
..PAGE6GFJO .
. ,\_,.,, _.::. i:~ •••
' ..
. 'j.~:·.
'··
Exhibit B - Page 026
..
.\
.,_.
INTERR~)_Gci:IQJ:~Y i:ii)_,_?. ln the June 24,2014 statements contained-in your Yelp
review of Law U!'flc·c uf i,knwans Gruber, PLLC, you make the following allegations;
•.
A. \n r<:garlis wtile aiicgation, "You will be doing the majority of the work," state what··.
work you allege you performed on the family law case during your representation by Law
r>fk." oi f~kintWil' Gruber. PLLC, and the dates you preformed the "work." .,
B. !n reg~rds lo the ailegation, "her legal counsel consists of her arguing with you," state
the d:;tes enci ii)nnt !email, letter, etc.) and content of the correspondence of any.
insrGncc in -.vhieh Ynu ,_,liege LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC was ·· ·.,,·
C. In regards In tiL~ :.ilkg;ition, "her legal counsel consist of ... sending hung over
r:;; ..• , :~'''''> cuu:~ :be<c:•'' state all dates, iilformation and facts that you used t~ form your .···
allc;;:.rtinn that i\. i'-'khcd Siegler was nung over and ii) that Kimberly Kleinhank\vas.
a•vu····
, "~ •'·•·' '··'i--'-''1l"c'
d>..>•. ,•c <···"·'·····..,..~;hung
<..\. ; •..JI'--t:.•Vl >'<U . over) as you allege'• · •· •. ,.
l). in r•.;:_•::rns "-' ·,;1<. e!:e,;"L'on, ::As well asdoin~.almost nothing'for'm~ in th~wa)iof,. ·.. ·
!er,di:.:.;·. r•.•. :h'"'""''' Pc!l '"''"rly complex legal system and helping me understand what's·
going on within it," slalc .the date and content of~ach instance You requested an·
exrh""' ;'-"' icum LA\V OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC concerning_ the .
or or
[,,""'' ,,_(<'' '· ;nc F"'''-''" }'ulll' family law case, any question whatsoever about Your: ..
i'iimdy b:;,_, ""''"an.:: ;<;_;k the content of the request for explanation or question and how · ·
Y'"" '"''""'c~ il wns nnt answered by LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC. . ... ·: ~
E. in ;egMcL rc• th<: oii~goLiun, " ... she do~s not even know the basics of the laws she
c\;;i:•"'' :.u s;:·;:•c;;,!j,_,, in," sl:tte the date and format (email, letter, etc.) !(nd.substance of any
em 1\~·;-;p;.HH.k.n·.:c thst ':·,-:u aHege Kimberly Kleinhans held out that she sp~cialized in
•.
,;j~-~-
l·. ;,, •e;c.rd•; utile J:l::;;":.ion. "She told me to call th&"jl'olice imd that they would make
n:y ;,·. ~i'. ,, ' " ' "''- :;o:; fur our coutt appointed time," siate tlie:date and format ~emaH, ·
\c:lc.r. cJc.j ··"''' "'-'l·oi•:nc;· nfany correspondence that KimberlY Kleinhans made~~l\id . ~ .
stah::;: h::;; ~- ••
. ·.-
! . . !{·:·-~<'--; ·:· ·- 1. .
·.. ·
•.
C. i1; ;·eg"ais_.v i.hc c.ikgalion that KimberlyKleinhans gave,"shj~y-te~,~~Myice;" sta;e ... .•.
til~ ~~.Ji.o:~ ._:;;(
. .....
nH'fn8t t,:::na;J, iC;Uer, etc.) and substance of any COI'fe$pQndeitce...tJi~t . . ~
. ·- ...
; ~ ,J ,•'.
·.,,:/: .. --~.. :·: .,.: ; ..·
.-.· I-J in rc;;c:"d-" i ) ''"' aii"c'"tiot> that LAW OFFICE OF KLEINRANS G~UBER;.'J>l:tc :•/::: . : ."·.i· ,. ', ·
h:L fa ikJ to, ";;ct. :;,:.;l~i cJso;; up for success later," sfite ~U dates, .. iriforrilaiion ·and facts·_· · -:· · ·.-.
lba~ you usc.d lo {(:>i n1 _your allegation. . · . • . _· _.. ...
' . :-.·
. LAW OFFiCe or :::_;:··.·:::M:•; C::.c'!kl!, PLLC '1. LEV! lVIORr-l . : : . :· .: f~: ...
: ..·
., :
.: .
.'.•.
Exhibit B - Page 027
INTERH_!_){_;,~,:rQUX_~1\!,_.lo To the extent that you have not alrel!dy done so, state in
detail, y,;ur ·,vsion cr.·,d d·,:crii:•tion of the events which are the subject of the Original Petition;
include ~it of vom per::oncd ob;:~·rvmions. Please provide all relevant times, dates, names and
locations.
INTEE:~\)~.-~:.~0~·~:-. l.:<::_l~-~2:.2.:- l_,__ientify all di~coverable, consulting experts, that is;_consulting
experts w!u.·:c wur:: :,,l:.: h.;:;;; H>Yiewed by the testifying expert. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). For
each expc·:-~ rl_<;_ C\..::.d. pl'(J\-[(;;;; i_iiC ;~Jih::;wing information: .
<:L Ti.tc expcr·~'s :uJ_mc, address, and telephone number.
; i;., •.' ;pen's cuncnt resume and bibliography.
c. The facts knmvn to the expert that relate to or fonri the basis of:tlte expert's
r"' ,ur' i~<)l:ressio:"; ami opinions fonned or made in connection ·with the case,·
t L-:5_;(:·~-~l.:::s:_- --)r -},'~~en a11d how the factual.inforffiation was aCquired._
The :·c;c-;,_H ir'prcssion:; or opinions ofthe expert formed or made in connection ·
with the case cl!ld Gny methods used to derive them.. ·
' ''. :;c,- :·.': ,, ·c·,:mcnls nnd tangible things, including reports, models; or data ..
:.i: .
··c:·, , .. :!:<o.~ '.n··:t: been pr'}vided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the
"·'' '.,.. ·,n 1<,_ :L ·:-y•:::ni s or tangible th,ings may properly be sought by a request -~
Lr :,:c~ddr;\inn.
INTEI1H0£;.6I.f2L_';J~;p,_)iL Do you contend that there was any fa\lure on the part of the
LAW OlTlCC •J:' '~' ;:w;; ''·':: GF.lJBERc PLLC to mi:igate their damages? If your answer is
anything nlhcr >r '·"''~:·;, iC:d "Yo," please set forjh the following infoimation specifically
and in dc:cii:
.\ ·;·,,c,c "'''~ncr m which the LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
PT r (' f,..,;:,.,--1 ~n :--.;it;,.T~Jt"' +)Jct'r
'·-'·-··-.,·_.H._,,";,·.::-·""-"~
damages o
· ·."
2 •.;.,, ''"!'• ·:cc' ''"'"i!l•: n~tion that the LAW OFFICE OF KLEiNHANS GRUBER,.
iJt.j_.~~ :·~~w;)!.·i tr_.,.,.,, f8.~<<:n tc mitigate or their damages:·
- - ........ ,___ .. - ,. .. ,... -----------~-'-'--'-----~---....::.C.
LAW OFI-Ilil:. Ol' KU:li<hAN.'; (;RUliSR. PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
PAGE 8 OF 10
··• t".·
·.
'. ..:· ·: .
,•·,, ·,
.'·
·,. :· ~ . :.t.•" ....
-::'.·' . : . .. ·.
Exhibit B - Page 028
INTEB,\~9_\-;_i\} _(JHY)'I•!)_. U, Pursuant ~o Rule 192.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil
ProccULo1.:: i ::-~:·;..se!J..~_;g exemptfrom~:dis_closure by privilege, as to whiCh this question
.')10:)'--· mdUer,v
does not apply), rcquc:slJS m2de 1hat you describ~ and Indicate the nature of any existing document
or tangible it~m which mav constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject matter of this action,
further indicating tile custodian and locati.on if the items are not within your possession, custody or
control.
..
INTEI<l~!)~)hT.~,mX__ Nj:l,_cL You contend that Your Yelp review of LAW OFFICE OF
KLEIN:-1-'\ '<S (,!z;_;BLR. PI LC contained statements of truth, substantial truth !lJ1d/or opinion,
for each ::;t;tk:rn2m L~);ltaiiicC~ in Lhe Yelp review; list under the category you allege the statement
falls imc.
/\. Truth.
INTE'fl!_t_~!(_iA.l.£!11_\'Jif),)J_, If you have ever been convicted of a felony or a crime
involv'.n:0 -,,._,·._,.', ,._,_ p)i• ><k. :;\,'.h'. \h~ ·nature of the charge and the date and place of arrest and
convic:co;; ..\c.: T2:. rz. E-.·id -'0".-(a)(I)(B), 609(a).
INTERROCAIC:E)' N(l,_lj, For each document produced in response to First Request
for Prr,d!icc. ,,., i<· ! \ I '"'' W! i'L identify which responsive Request for Production number(s)
?~. ~·. . ·..
-:-.>· _. ·,:.
:.::;(:·
. ~~---
LAW Oi·i'i!:'\'. c:;;c K:Yi'iH,\>;:, GRUBER, PLLC v .. LEVJMORIN.
FIRST SET C•:- :'", ~~ •_;;r:<;.•:i\:.'RiE~- 1f.1 LEVl MORlN
·' .
..,.
Exhibit B - Page 029
~-: ..
VERIFICATION
§
§
COUNTY OF §
- - - - - ' after being duly sworn, states:
that she i·; c;hwc tik <:gc ccf J g years and is competent in all respects to make this affidavit; that he
has carefully reviewed the attached answers to "FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO LEVl
MORJN'. ,;,,; 1v: h:>s pcr<cmll knowledge of the matters, facts and information contained in _and
comprisin~~~ :<1id ;tr,:;-.,'"-':;..~r:>: rwd thai all of th6 matters, facts, jnfonnation and answers contained
LEVI MORIN
SUBSCRIBED AND SWOR1'1 TO BEFORE ME, by LEVI MORIN, on this----.,.,
. 201
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Texas
'
My Commission expires:
..
- .. :.·
; :·
- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - " : . . _ - ' " - , -_ _~_ ___.:c;_;__--'---
LAW OFF!( F. OF KLUNHANo lJII.UBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
FIRST SET ,y: !;-. rr.RROG.-\T()RIES TO LEV: MORIN · PAGE 10 on,o .
.: ..
\- ..... .
Exhibit B - Page 030
CAVSE NO. D-1-GN-14-003874
LA\V OFF5Ci( OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, §
Phdntiff. §
v. § 201'' JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
LEVI rviORli\~ §
Deft.. ndaH~. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS·
;<'lEST l?EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO LEVI MORIN
To: i.::•:; \·lORlN, by and through their attorney of record, Leif Olsen, 4830 Wilson Road,
Suite 300. Humble, Texas 77396.
COTvT:~ "iOW. L/\ \\" OH"JCE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, Plaintiff, and serves
LEVi MO\':L\. L·c,,·.n,hnc ~eid> >his First Rcqaest for Production pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.
Your re;p;m:;cs to ;his First Request for Production are to be preceded by the particular Request
for Production to which the response pertains. You are to serve your responses and objections, if
any, upc•:, L. \ \';' Of"f ICE CF K"LElNHANS GRUBER, PLLC w;ithin thirty (30) days ilfter you
receive tllc::c· '"·''"·""'"Y :cq;:cst:; <tl the office of LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,
You an:: <.H..h ;;;cd ri-;8.\ :n1 ;;~,,asive or incomplete response is to be treated as a failure to
respond. \'uu ..irt :;:::.p~ct,:::.·; lc :.uppkment your responses in accordB;nce with Tex. R. Civ~ P.
193. If yx: l2i! ;_,) \>{',y(_d ;:,,, Ui(':i(: discovery requests as set forth above and in accordance with
Tex. R. c:n. l'. i 96, LAV/ OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC, by and through their
attorney ui" lt:e<)rci, mco.y move: i(l!· sanctions against you pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.
,.
·.;
......
- . ':
'·
.·
LAW OFfJCE ()F K.LEE,;I·iA(~S CP..UBER, PLLC V. LEVI MORJN
,fiRSTRHY.:!:?.T r;cY, P?r·,uu::·-nnt.; ·10 LEVI 'MORIN PAGi;J OF7
. -·· .-..
Exhibit B - Page 031
Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF KG, PLLC
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
By: -::-:--:-P.>f::.CC::-':'-:---------
Kimb I . Kleinhans
r No. 24062755
kim@lawofficeofkg.com
Keith L. Kleinhans
Texas Bar No. 24065565
keith@lawofficeofkg.com
700 Lavaca, Ste, 1400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512.961.8512
Facsimile: 512.623.7320
' . ... ,.
=-~j '·
::~.
. ··.
~
..
·-· ·
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..
l certify t!"'t a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or piuty in
aceordancc w;t:1 <he: Tcxes Rules of Civil Procedure on the 28'h day of October, 20.Jll·•:.'\·· .
.' :-
LeifOison
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble: Tex;l:~ 77~~96
Telephone Number: 28J.g49.83~2
Facsimile: ;~CJ Fa;-,:. t~urnbc.r 1·.;.-:\st-:;
Email: I{~;r:-~:,;l ..:.o:ui"lpeal~--cDin
VIA Cl\'U:.:;_H.R# '/U ~J ~:.25:) OUUi 3659 4138
AND Ei\IAJL
Kimberly
.·'·
Keith L. K
· ...
--~-------·-·· -- ---------···-·· --------'---------------~
LAW OF!:fC1: ~)!: Kl.i~-1>-!HA:NS C:RU!-~ER, PLLCV. LEVI MORJN
FIRST REQUEST F•Jt< f)l\OOUCTI0:-1 '!\ 1 LEVi MORIN. PAGE20F7
·~·
...·
·
..-·..
Exhibit B - Page 032
DEFINITIONS
t" :.sed heroin, the following terms are defined as follows:
a. ··J>!e>inttit' <~'t"J:S L.\ W C>FFlCE Of KLEINHANS GRUBER, PLLC and all other natural persons
or business or legal entities acting or purporting to act for or oh her behalf.
b. "Deh,d<cnt" means LEVI MORIN, and all other natural persons or business or legal entities acting
or purpcrtlng :_o act CrJr ~H on behalf of Defendant.
c. 'ln•:.i:kn<" •rr '\'elf• ,.,;vie~'/' as that word is used herein refers to the June 24, 2014 posting by
LE\'I1·-,,fORJ:-.J on <.Hi iu<ernet website called Yelp. ·
d. ··rerso11'·' means any natura! person, any business, a legal or governmental entity, or an association.
e. ··occupation" means a fuil, accurate and complete description of the nature, type, title and
employment earned on by the person inquired about; the name and address of their employer; and,
the dai.e(s) such occupation began and tenninated.
f. ''i locurnent" m~nn> .;.nyiid;~g •vhich may be considered to be a document or tangible_thing within
the mca,,ie<[: of TEX. R. CIV. P. 193 and means the original, or any copy if tlie original is not
a\·.:j~.,\l<L'" c~: ':;rilin\,.; :-nJ t;mgib!e things of every kiild and description, and includes, but is not
limi1c-:i to, any drmvirig. graph 1 photograph, film, video, phone r~cord, report, minutes, transcript,
mcrnc~randun1. note3, j;)t!!ngs, paper, -letter, correspondenc~, communicatiOri; invoice, contract,
cheek, c!wck stub. "''counting iedger, chart, map, plat, tape, disk, card, wire and any other.
e!cctrc-nic, n~-a~£>tic or ;r,ce[mnical recording or transcript of any other inst11:1ment or device which
conuins any infOrmatiun or H"om which any infonnati6n can· be derived· or retrieyed. ·The tenn ·
··dcL~·t<;-;-,l'::i!'' --,1.-:c• ir,--::1\.v::_::; c(<pie:; containing any information in addition to or in any waY different
from th:;t :.:oni.~1ir~ed ;n :·~r n1: th·2 miginal, and aU attachments, enclo·sures or documents affixed. or
r.::fcrTeo tO in any dnn1rnents to be described pursuant to these !equeSts.
g. "Rd;.nin!~,- means c.on&ming, referring, describing, ~videncing, or constituting, directly or
imlirccil~.:.
h. ..~urcn:c11t' mcan·i ··"':-· wcittete or grapl1ic state;nents signed or otherwise adapted or approved .by ··
the f:'er:;on making it, and any stenographic, mechanical) electrical -or other recording or
1LFbcnvinn lhcrcr:f, ·,\-\",i,:-h is a substantiaJly verbatim recital of an oral statemen~ by th!! person
m·1kmg it a~d c-')ntr:mptxmwously recorded. ·
i. "A r;d'' ;:.nd '\Jr" sl:c.t!lci b~ constnted a" both conjunctive and disjunCtive as. fiecessary to bring
'~-·ittoin tli~: scope of thr- di::covery request all response that might otherwise ·be· Construed tg _be:
0\JI:-;ide v,' iL SCC!:'i!.
·•
k. "C'Y'u;Ju--rit:ntic-::;·· ;L:::.·--~:; 1n~ transmissiOn or exchange of informatiOn betv-;een,_ty.vo 'or more
'"" ''-''''· •Jr ;., .,,,,·iting, through any document; as defined above, and' includes,· withoUt
iin!i;.;;; i01i, <ln y c·:JJl'.· :.;!.S;:li(:ti t)t discussions. whether face-to-face, via telephone lin~s- Or dat_a lin_es. ·
'··,:
LAW OFFJt~F (Ji; KU~iNI-iAi<~i c;-:_LBEK PLLC V. LEVI ~V.iORIN
FIRST RE(:! ·F~·r F·:lR ~ 1 RnL·,:_<CTl;Y,1 ;\) LEVI :\·IORJN PAGE3 OF7 ·
::.
Exhibit B - Page 033
BfJ)UEST FOR PRODUCTION
REC UEt;'(_t~~L- 1, .'\L ., .·i:vcn ii:pcr:s or other documentation concerning all factual
observmi•:>nr,. :;upp•.•;·cing da•.•:t, c:dcu!ations, photographs and opinions of each such expert who
may tesrii~Y Hr"i cf any c<J•tscdting experts whose work product has been reviewed by an expert
who m;n· le<il'::, icc!udinc; rut not limited to any reports prepared by or under the direction of
such persoE. including any r,2cording or transcripts of any o_ral report.
. -..
REOUL:LL~~-~-;::.:.:.!:. F:·l'..:h ,;~-d ~'!\'~ry vvritten Statement or Document in your possession
conc~r~; u;:; ""' h;.:;d,:.c-.c ''''" ','C.J aiJ,,gc :;up ports your allegations you're your Yelp review was
true or sul :::-Ln! i;d ::·' : (:.:.::..
REOm;~':iTJ~~J_,},. Copies of ony and ali revieirs of LAW OFFICE OF KLEINHANS
GRUHi i;. • '.: .• ',,, '"·' cucc;«:·. ul' iJ,W OFFICE OF KLEINHANS GRUBER,PLLC posted
online. by '{•:·t.!.
REOT.llif.T_£'!!•.:,.:1, CP;~i<OHJ(1tw correspondence betwe!ln '{ou and Yelp concerning you~·
Yelp r~-- '~''' u!' i !·.'N Of"fCE OF f.LElNfL'\.NS GRUBER;:PLLC.
' .
REQUf)iiJ~~i?~.~'-' ;\\!Documents referenced in your Responses to First Set of Interrogatories
to LEVI :vi0Rii<
,. •.
'
REQlJ_&"'i:X.J.:!..Q,__§, Copie·; of any and all postings made about LAW OFFICE OF
KLE!Nl-ii\(;3 <iiZUBf:'R, PLLC 011 Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Friendster, Orkut, Hi5;
Meet Up u1rn_ (;oogic + ..Linked in or any other social media site.
REQT,!]:;i_U:is;:,L Al! ':mai!s in your possession to or from LAW OFFICE C>FKLEINHANS · ·.
GRU BEF. '' U C lhi1 supp '"" v,,,. responses to Interrogatory No. ?.subparts A through L
..... ·-- -- -~·- ·----~~-::-::-:--:-:::~. ;-::-::--::--~----c--'----'---,-~~---
LAW OFFtC\3.0!' ;,uo:NHJ\NS LiRl!BER,PLLCV.LEVI MORiN
:'. 'J \-_! i\JORTN PAGE40F7
Exhibit B - Page 034
REQLY:ccL ·cf.},_iJ. \ •: r'' -: ci·.:Jl :nodels, and alf other exhibits that may be used at trial by any
witnes~.
·\ l! cbwments you may use as demonstrative aids at trial.
REOUFs·; .V::c_J..IL id thcuments concerning apy alleged criminal violation committed by
LEVI iVFlFJ~:.
REOlJE{iLi~Q,.lL. 1\ii p•:blished treatises, periodicals or pamphlets on the subject of hiStory,
medici"" c>r .:-iher scic:H:.: ,,,. <:n dmt you claim to be areliable authority which may be used at
the timL '<
:_! •:,:
REQl!_EbT_.'i~i. ,'.,.';., An:. end ail Documents which you contend demonstrate that LEVI
MORif'. >.v:;~- u_,_, n'::gligcn1.
REOU(..0.i..c:•.•z,j)~ ,\c: ad nil documents and things prepared by, shown to, relied upon,
referred i ;' i ;:; " ; ·.' i;".VV.i hv nny (act Witness Or testifying expert WitneSS in preparation for Or
while S;V;~,-~~1, k.·--t_ir;l._Hty ;L ;_hi;~ CDS:.:.!.
RE0l'l<5L!'''-~.L~~ l'ie<>.r;(: orofluce copies of any letter, e-mail, text message or other wdtten or
electron·. '·"' ''' :;;;;c::ti·.:<> ,,;· '-'lY type rbat you have received or read from anyone (excepting
only y: >:: · .·r: ,.. ·.-:y .;c •:;: ~' •rJ•r:lev' <: s:aff) that describes or mentions 'the Incident.
LAW OFciCF '·''' ;:,' .l'lNH.·\?-"i UUHJER, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
FlRST RF)l.._i"-:~T '-<>;{ ?~:()l)lj~_] FjN jfJ LEVJ !V10RIN PAGE50F7
.;',; ··:·.
Exhibit B - Page 035
REOU !':-:·r '!0 b. Pkose produce any invo!ce and/or bill reflecting LEVI MORIN's attorney
fees forth\ :;r:i.\\:~;'uii.
REOl!lCiU.':i!l.':: i'k•><c- produce the attorney fee contract that LEVI MORIN signed with
The ()by,;-;, •:. i" .u:.
REOli)·">~L.\\.U.L ;\copy of ;uJy and all documents evidencing, identifying, and((O)r relating to
any time spent, w<y·i; p ,rform,,d, and/or expenses incurred by LEVI MORIN's attorneys on the
abov'' r:· ''" ,,,,,,.,!
:me! curnbcred cause, including but not limited to time slips, invoices, journal
entries,'·''-!'''''"' ··ccr-•jr(•,, link reports and daily diary entries.
. '.
RE0\.1\•.,:-:; ~;e.':._Ll.:C A wp;· c;· ,,,j,y and all docu!l1ents evidencing payment for' attorney fees to
The Gi:,:.llt Firnt, PLLC.
REOlJL'::L:'''' ·• /1•1> ''"'.!a!! tape recordings 'in possession of LEVI MORIN that pertain to
any issu,~:-: '~~ Hti~ ;:_:-~_~:.-_-.
REQli\',::i:.\. :~:_Q__In, ,\ny and a!! calendars, diaries or other written logs of LEVI MORIN that.
pertain 1.c ,::t-l:·-' i:;sJ;~s ::l Ll:!~; ctse
REOlU~.::iJ.. >~O?__ll,_ ;\ny :md all Documents that support the allegation in Your Yelp review
that, -~v.~u \.v-i1 ~Y.: ;:;~)in::; :.k" majority of the work."
LAW OF; •c;, i. ;.: i~: •:-:! '·'·"' ;
•iil.'JliE.R, PLLC V. LEVI MORIN
fiRST i<J=)> :-:~;T (. H: p:;(;!Jd_"f!l :<·:··;.)LEVI MORIN PAGE60F7
. '
Jate: 02/15/2015 Record Report Page: 1
L.D...VV OFFICE OFExhibit B - Page 036GRUBER,
KLEINHANS PLLC
Field Value
Record Type ~~=>~----------------
Date
Time I: ti:OO AM
Duration 0 00:00
Status u
Description
Client ID 1<!0184.00
Contact
User ID KG
SenUReceived R
To/From Kimberly A. Gruber, Esq. <kim@lawofficeofkg.com>
Subject Fwd: Offer declined; potential hearing dates
Spoke With N
Returned Call ;~
Left Message N
Voice Message \j
First Date mrn/dd/yyyy
Last Date rnm/dd/yyyy
First Time '11-.-mm:ss Alvl
Last Time !1h:mm:ss AM
Duration
Research URL
Research File
E-mail Body ---------- Forwarded message----------
Frorn: Kimberly A. Gruber, Esq. <kim@lawofficeofkg.com>
Date: Man, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:26 AM
.Subject: Re: Offer declined; potential hearing dates
To: Leif Olson <leif@olsonappeals.com>
·~eif-
' hope you had a good holiday.
N2 a:e still in the process of moving offices and in addition I am
'"igt1ific:;;ntly decreasing my hours in the offices to care for our daughter
and our son on the way (one of the primary reasons amoungst other
personal reasons that we need to nonsuit this case). However, if you are
·;oing to push forward and make us present these facts to a judge, despite
·::lur :'lgreernent to nonsuit, we will need discovery.
:Cic;;c;sro advir,e whether you are in agreement to answer the discovery that
vias served on you nearly 45 days ago, and if so, by what date you will be
answering the discovery and physically providing us production (this is the
'jz,te you will physically have the production in the office NOT a date you
will respond that we can send a copy service to Dallas). Additionally, we
i!ii! n;eeci a hearing on our Notice of Nonsuit (and discovery or discovery
ddidencies, if necessary). This hearing will need to be set prior to your
·e~11e:oted Sf)tting on a date about whether
.. -. - ·-- · - - - - - - - - - - - -
am
e: 02/15/2015 '~scord
ExhibitReport
B - Page 037
Page: 2
iii~. ~ ::-L.. t: '.)F KLEiNHANS GRUBER, PLLC
····~--------------------------
d
·:;,.aJv, i arn still waiting on you to provide the documents that you told me
;·. :; 'i.'uuiti prnvide relating to the bar complaint filed by Levi Morin against
·: .i::<li and Michael Seigler. Please let me know when I can expect
)
)ate: 02/15/2015 Record Report Page: 1
LAVJ ,;n IC:'. OFExhibit B - Page 038GRUBER,
KLEiNHANS PLLC
.. -·-----------------------------
~ield h: '"-''
- - - - - - - ----------------- -
~ecord Type
)ate c),_,:;:sr2o10
rime 0/_:0b:OO PM
Duration C.!:OC.:DO
Status cl
Description ::,:dl witll opposing counsel and email about settings/discovery.
81ient ID
8ontact <J!:;en/Lief
User ID
Sent/Received
To/From 'eit{Y~~·,!s·:Jn2pr.eals.com
Subject __ , ._, :::r';,_-e KG, PLLC v. Morin- Settings
Spoke With
Returned Call
Left Message \i
Voice Message
First Date ;;i t"(u'dd/yyyy
Last Date :r: iT!irjd/yyyy
First Time :-:h:l·,-ir:';:ss AM
Last Time :-h.rnrn:ss AM
Duration
Research URL
Research File
E-mail Body
cur discussion today, in reviewing emails, I noticed that I am still
'-' ·,ic;r:u '-•r you to let me know when you will get us discovery responses
·,,"cJ j:•rov'de me with the complaints that Levi Morin filed on myself and
:-;',.:.haei Seigler) so I know whether I need to set a Motion to
:::crnpei!Motion for Discovery along with our Motion to Determine
·~c;:s:::t::::nike Any Future Setting and in alt to Revoke Notice of Nonsuit
""''-,.,·:c\<i this motion may end up being called, we discussed this as
',',+~!!).
- .::c::n 'lS you get me dates when I will have discovery responses, I can
'---!, nt l':c> :.alendar to see the workload that I have at that time and to
''' ·:·: '"'"' !>ow long it will take me to review the discovery and allow me
· · :·,: ··::!-,
:im-.oo to draft a Motion to Compel if needed prior to the settings on
): : :-.;:!)tio;J to Compel/Motion for Discovery along with our Motion to
) -.:-:: ::·.!::e i'ionsuit/Strike Any Future Setting and in alt to Revoke Notice
Sunday am
Exhibit B - Page 039
_______..___
Kim Kleinhans
~-~----,,~-->,;."t,!O:l.<t-''"'&>::LI='IU-';'~--~------------------
From: Lei'(\!--~~ <''-"if(o)o! a eals.com>
Sent: Friday. h::bruarv 13, 2015 7:38 P
To: Kirr>· !; Vir':::hans Gruber (kim@lawofficeofkg.com)
Subject: KG ·I i\i\onn: Discovery; hearings
Attachments: 1SU < 3Yre-motion disco resps.pdf; Morin0001-Morin0014.pdf; 150213.NOH on TCPA
mojci·1.pdf
JournaiPM:
1. I believe that I told you over the phone a while ago that the disciplinary counsel's
office destroyed the file as part of their· file-retention policy. (I may be confusing that
with a discussion I was havincJ vvith someone else on an unrelated bar-association
event.) Levi doesn't have a copy.
2. My position on discovery h.•Jsn't changed: I don't think you're entitled to it. When we
spoke over the phone, you 'Nel·en't willing to limit your requests or identify the ones that
you thought most important. So l put together responses that appear to address the
arguments that wil! comfc u:: :t c h.o·"lring on the motion to dismiss. They're attached.
You should also be getting en e·s,?Tved copy.
3. And, speaking of the heari,:g: The absolute drop-dead date for the court to hear the
motion to dismiss is Thursday, February 26, so I've set a hearing for that morning. That
will leave you with no time for· discovery even if the judge thinks you deserve it. I can
reset the hearing for somettn·H:: neO<t week, which would give you at least a bit of time. I
would prefer to have ti1e he;, ::·:0 next Thursday, anyway, but according to your
amended vacation letter, yuu'ii c:iceady oe out of town. If you would rather have the
chance to see the judge befr)t-~' the hearing deadline, I'll reset it for Tuesday (whichever
of a.m. or p.rn. you prefer).:: !ei: rne knovv.
LEIF A. OLSU''
BOAIWCEnTIF/F.I'. t. ~~- n -~L •.;_; .-u:· 1: ·,\'
THE OLSON FIF)L !'!.f..(.:
LEIF@OI..SONAPL!~c\.!,5[!.}!,1
(281) 849-8.l82
PMB ISS • 483C•\V;is,.,, R•r:~.LS,
Humble. Texas /7l 0 h
Exhibit B - Page 040
No. D-1-GN-14-003874
LAVi 0F!'!CE OF KLEINHANS
GRUEER~ PLLC 201st District Court
v. Travis County, Texas
LEvr MouN
J'l•lc,~:in'_~ Voluntary Pre-dismissal Discovery Responses
Dis~o' cry is m ycd because Morin has moved for dismissal under the
Ttxels Ctiz:ns P. micipation Act. Though it's not required of him, Morin,
in the interest of comity, submits these responses to the discovery requests
lint g:o di r('ctly to lhe issues raised in the motion to dismiss. He doesn't
waive the protection fi·om discovery that the Act gives him.
Bectuse of the stay, there's no need for Morin to object to the firm's
reqLsd3, ,,,,he doc::n·r. But he doesn't
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.