Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike John O’Quinn’s Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment based on not done corrected under local rules and also filed late and noted this is an ongoing problem with O’Quinn’s legal team and filing.

We will be putting the other paperwork that John O’Quinn filed on the night of October 3 and 4, after the Court closed and kept it coming until after midnight. There are a lot of double filings of documents with the three Motions for Summary Judgment.

As I said earlier, I will be putting something up later today about my thoughts of what WAS NOT filed with the multiple Motions for Summary Judgment. Stay tuned, we hope you read, research and share with us what you find as we go through all of this.

It appears that the Florida Federal Court for the Southern District does care. The Court has issued today, October 6, an Order for John O’Quinn to Show Cause why Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike O’Quinn’s filings for Summary Judgment should not be granted, O’Quinn’s Reply is due no later than October 8.

©Rose Turner
October 6, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

In the answer filed by TMZ and Harvey Levin on June 16 in the 190th Court in Harris County, they make the following statement:

“C. Request for Disclosure

Looking at Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, we find the following:

RULE 194. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
194.1 Request.
A party may obtain disclosure from another party of the information or material listed in Rule 194.2 by serving the other party - no later than 30 days before the end of any applicable discovery period -the following request: “Pursuant to Rule 194, you are requested to disclose, within 30 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule [state rule, e.g., 194.2, or 194.2(a), (c), and (f), or 194.2(d)-(g)].”

194.2 Content.
A party may request disclosure of any or all of the following:
(a) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
(b) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
(c) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);
(d) the amount and any method of calculating economic damages;
(e) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case;
(f) for any testifying expert:
(1) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify;
(3) the general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a
brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information;
(4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control
of the responding party:
(A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
(B) the expert’s current resume and bibliography;
(g) any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3(f);
(h) any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g);
(i) any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h);
(j) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills;
(k) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party
by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party;
(l) the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party.

Looking at Texas Civil Procedure Rule Rule 192.3(h) we find the following:
192.3(h) Statements of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. A party may obtain discovery of the statement of any person with knowledge of relevant facts–a “witness statement”– regardless of when the statement was made. A witness statement is (1) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved in writing by the person making it, or (2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other type of recording of a witness’s oral statement, or any substantially verbatim transcription of such a recording. Notes taken during a conversation or interview with a witness are not a witness statement. Any person may obtain, upon written request, his or her own statement concerning the lawsuit, which is in the possession, custody or control of any party.

So using the above from the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, what are TMZ and Harvey Levin asking for and what is due to their lawyers by July 16?

(a) Is easy, they just want the correct names of ALL of the parties in the lawsuit, which is already shown on Virgie Arthur’s filings.

(b) Is simple too, does Virgie Arthur have any “Does” listed as not knowing but can be added later? Look at Howard K. Stern’s filing against Rita Cosby and Hachette Books for an example of this. In this state case TMZ is asking for the following from Virgie Arthur, the Plaintiff in this state suit, for the following: the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;

(c) Again this is easy to get, it is the legal theories and in general, the factual bases of the Plaintiff’s claims or defenses, NOT the whole thing or the what will be proffered at trial but who are the other people in this lawsuit, in Virgie Arthur’s case what is her “legal theory or factual bases for bringing the lawsuit”. In the people whom have already been served, what if any defenses are they using and what is the factual bases of those claims. (I. E. Art Harris and Bonnie Stern are alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. Lyndal Harrington and Rose Turner has filed a “Special Exception Response”, download the filings to see both what the Special Exception and then Original Answer filed with all of the Respondents (Defendants) that have filed to date. I would imagine this is where the lawyers will introduce themselves, give the list of people they represent, and provide a copy of what has been filed to date to TMZ by July 16.)

(d) In this part it appears that TMZ is asking Virgie Arthur for the “the amount and any method of calculating economic damages”.

(e) This next part is a brief description of who knows what, again for the plaintiff. However, I would think this is the lawyers introducing themselves and opening up channels to provide the requested information so no Motion to Compel has to be filed. It would be easy I think for Virgie Arthur as well as the defendants to provide this, in the federal suit this would be the “initial Rule 26 disclosure” if that makes this part easier to understand for all of you who have been following the federal suits in all of this. TMZ is asking Virgie Arthur’s lawyers for a brief list including the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection to the case. Are they fact witnesses, the parties or who, and how does TMZ reach them or an attorney representing them.

(f) This is asking if Virgie Arthur has retained any experts yet, or have, her or her representatives talked to any expert and if so then TMZ is asking for the information they are allowed at this part. I would think that would also include just a simple “No Expert has been retained or has had a conference with yet in regards to this lawsuit” It is my reading of this if you don’t have the person yet, then TMZ is out of luck for now. This does however make sure if TMZ is going to hire an expert they don’t’ contact or have a conference with a potential expert for the Plaintiff in this case.

(g) This is just does the Plaintiff have insurance to cover the costs, similar to what John O’Quinn handed over to Howard K. Stern’s lawyers in regards to his insurance policy and what it covers and are the premiums up to date. Remember TMZ is now suing Virgie Arthur for all of their costs to defend themselves. They want to know if Virgie Arthur can pay this at the end of the lawsuit. I think I read somewhere that Perez Hilton paid $85k in defense of a SLAPP suit in California just to the point of it being dismissed by the court. Therefore, if TMZ prevails how do they get their money back from Virgie Arthur if she does have “legal insurance”?

(h) This is settlement agreements, has Virgie Arthur reached any settlement agreements with the other defendants and if so under the provision of Rule 192.3(g) TMZ wants that information. I have added the Texas Civil Rules of Procedures in our download section for Virgie Arthur vs. those of us she is suing in state court.

(i) TMZ wants any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h), looking at that it would appear to me they are asking for Chrystal Baker, Yvonne Waddle (Barnhart), and anyone else that Virgie Arthur has not filed the witness statements from yet but has in her lawyers’ possessions. This might also include the affidavits that were presented in the Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS suit. Isn’t there a family member of Virgie Arthur with an affidavit filed in that suit? However, TMZ might not be entitled to that since the Arthur vs. Stern and CBS suit contains entirely different allegations. Unless when Howard K Stern files his answer, I feel that he will again state in part; a “lack of personal jurisdiction” then those affidavits filed in federal court I believe will be turned over. This brings up an interesting point; the judge in the federal suit has said she has “personal jurisdiction” over Howard K. Stern because ET is a nationally shown program including Texas. Will that hold true for TMZ.com because residents in Texas read it? I predict this is going to bring the whole internet and who all it reaches into question in this suit.

(j), (k) and (l) are self explanatory if all of this to the point medical care as a result of damaged Virgie Arthur any mental aguish or pain has been received by her.

Lauren brought up a good point in this last night and I have not read Lin Wood’s filing in federal court about what media attorneys do when they come in to defend against a suit like this. If you want to read that article it is in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm and associates that was filed on July 2 in the Florida Federal Court.

So where would you prefer to be sitting right now if you were in this suit? Once July 16 comes and goes will TMZ and Harvey Levin, when they receive this information from Virgie Arthur’s lawyers, be able to reach out and get some additional information from those whom have given “sworn declarations” that were filed in two of the federal courts here in Texas?

Give us your thoughts on this Saturday regarding these Texas Rules and how TMZ and Harvey Levin are using them. Hopefully we will have a good discussion here.

©Rose Turner
July 5, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Do you believe that bloggers have the same rights as print journalists? In several federal cases, bloggers have been issued press passes just like all other journalists.

Do you believe in the First Amendment and that if blogs can be sued just because you do not like what is being said; if one blog falls victim, other blogs are left vulnerable?

If you believe in the above help protect the First Amendment Rights of Rose Speaks, you can do this by making a contribution to our legal team, these cases as PrezHilton.com has shown us can be very expensive. The last one he fought was approx. $85,000.

We know we will win this, we have one of the best First Amendment legal teams in the country, so make a donation today. The money will help save all bloggers First Amendment rights. Another way you can help is by getting other blog owners to post a link back here, to our first page at http://www.rosespeaks.com. This fight is not just for Rose Speaks but for all bloggers, to make sure we keep our First Amendment rights.

Before the naysayers start any hoopla dance, don’t! Rose Speaks is going to fight this to the very end, don’t look for any “we give up”, it is not going to happen. We can promise all of our readers at Rose Speaks that we are committed and are here for the long haul! Then we will confer and assess with our legal team who all we will be able to hold accountable for defamation.

Contributions for the defense of Rose Speaks in saving the First Amendment of all of us on the internet can be made out to the firm and sent directly to:

Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria
1900 Pennzoil South Tower
711 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002

Please include on your check or M. O. this is to be used to cover costs to defend Rose Speaks, you can state your contribution is including the owner and moderators here at Rose Speaks or simply Rosespeaks.com. You can also contribute by Pay Pal here using the Pay Pal button on on the lower left of this page; all monies collected will be forwarded to our Attorneys.

Virgie Arthur filed a Response today [May 14], to the Sur Reply filed by CBS-KPRC on May 6.

Virgie Arthur’s team also filed a Response in East Texas to the Motion on the Turner’s Reply to Arthur’s Motion to Compel. It is now on PACER with the correct papers. FOR THE FIRST TIME WE NOW HAVE WADDLES STATEMENTS, filed with that Reply in East Texas.

Please Remember we can not comment on any of this except to say we have total confidence in our team of first amendment lawyers, and will do what they advice us to do and anything the court orders us to do. You can pick up the newest filing today by Arthur’s team in our download section which is open to ALL, not just registered members.

Please also read our new Terms of Use and our new Privacy Policy as the site continues to grow because we do listen to you and we will always address your concerns.

©Rose Turner
May 14, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

PrezHitton.com today sent out a plea international which in part says:

“Lyndal Harrington, one of the Texan bloggers targeted by Virgie says she was shocked to hear about the lawsuit and that it’s been “hard to find an attorney to stand up for (her) First Amendment rights.”

“Help our fellow bloggers out!”

“Freedom of speech!”

Read the rest of Perez Hilton’s article at this link:

http://perezhilton.com/2008-04-22-comin-to-get-yall

Pick up a copy of the lawsuit filed by Arthur’s lawyers filing here, available to ALL, not just members.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&cid=22

We will be back tomorrow [April 23], with the first part of our exclusive interview with Pol’ Atteu and Patrik Simpson and then it will business as usual here, and once we can obtain a legal copy of Virgie Arthur’s filing it will be available here to read in our download section, guess we need to add a new category??