First Court of Appeals in Houston Texas issued it’s Opinion “Conditionally” granting Art Harris Motion for Writ of Mandamus.

Here are the Orders the Trial Court Issued on January 27, 2009, May 11, 2009 and August 28, 2009. All of these were overruled by the First Court of Appeals today in regards to Harris but the full appointing of Craig Ball as a Special Master was also overruled so my take is that this applies to all of the defendants. I am also linking Harris’ Motion to Reconsider the Appointment of a Special Master filed August 23, 2008.

I will be posting some Federal Court Decisions recently issued that seems to agree with this ruling.

It is unclear if Virgie Arthur is entitled to the additional 300 million pages of emails that were produced during the imaging of Harris’ hard drives that the Plaintiff never received. It seems the Court of Appeals is saying that Arthur is only entitled to the original 300 pages Harris turned over in December 2008 and the production will be rolled back to December 2008, with Arthur having to make addition Request for Production of Harris. Remember on March 12, 2009 the 80th District Court eliminated and all parties at the conference agreed that the production should become much more narrow and Judge Weiman stated that going into someone’s hard drives was very intrusive and should be avoided if possible.

On points one and three that Harris filed an Appeal on the Appellate Court to ruled that; “We hold that in compelling discovery from Harris without requiring Arthur to identify specific discovery requests with which Harris had not complied, without holding a hearing on Harris’ motion for protective order, and in ordering production from Harris without having before it a motion to compel discovery from him, the trial court acted arbitrarily and without considering the discovery rules.” That is why I am saying back to the 300 pages produced in December 2008 with a MUCH more narrow search of emails (I. E. only from the defendants to each other and about Arthur)” and “We further hold that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering over broad discovery and in failing to determine whether the documents sought by Arthur from Harris were privileged, as Harris claimed, or even whether they were relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to Arthur’s claims.”.

In relation to Points one; “(1) in ordering Harris to turn over “electronic media” for forensic examination when there was neither a pending request for production nor any request for production of documents with which he had not complied;” and three, “(3) in refusing to apply Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3 and other discovery procedures on the treatment of privileged documents and creation of privilege logs;” the Appellate Court ruled; “We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion not only by compelling production of overly broad discovery without addressing Harris’ motion for protective order and without a motion to compel discovery from Harris before it, but also by issuing its even more invasive order that Harris produce his hard drives and by failing to require Arthur to make any showing that the benefit of the discovery she sought outweighed the burden and expense to Harris. Thus, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the January 27, 2009 order compelling Harris to produce documents in response to Arthur’s requests for production and to produce his hard drives and by issuing its May 11, 2009 order denying Harris’ motion to clarify. We sustain Harris’ first issue. ….Because we have already determined that the trial court erred in the ways set forth above, this issue is moot. We overrule Harris’ third issue.”

In relations to point four; “(4) by failing to consider Rule 171 in appointing a special master to conduct forensic computer examinations;” and five, “(5) by appointing a special master to investigate and inquire into patterns of discovery abuse, or, in the alternative, by failing to remove a special master who is acting outside the limitations and specifications stated in the Order appointing him, including reading attorney-client communications.” The First Court of Appeals used Weekley Homes for guidance in their rulings which I think we all would agree is the right litmus test, the Court Stated that “We conclude that Harris has not waived his fourth and fifth issues.” The Appellate Court in it’s ruling states; “To the extent that the trial court’s appointment of Ball was as a forensic examiner instead of as a master, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with Weekley Homes, as we have explained above. We sustain Harris’ fourth and fifth issues.”

In reference to Harris Point two; “(2) in ordering Harris to respond to the Special Master’s questions and to assess usage and contents of other electronic media listed in the Special Master’s August 17, 2009 email”…” The Court Ruled that; “Because we have already determined that the court’s appointment of Craig Ball as a forensic examiner and special master was an abuse of discretion, this issue is moot.”

The only mistake I found which in my opinion would not affect this ruling is that Ogden filed to leave January 2, 2009 and Harris’ new counsel did not file an appearance until February 2, 2009, that is a simple typo I believe. My take is of course the Special Master Craig Ball is gone, Arthur pays his fees and the discovery if rolled back to December 2008 with Motion to Produce now going from that date. I have no idea how this will affect the April 30th hearing on Harris Motion for Protective Order not to answer or produce any information pending the First Court of Appeals Ruling. I also have no idea how this will affect the “Default Judgment” rendered against Bonnie Stern or the incarceration of Teresa Stephens and Lyndal Harrington. It looks to me like Judge Weiman and the 80th District Court for Harris County is going to have to digest this ruling and then go forward. However any information provided by Craig Ball appears to be out in this case in my opinion.

Because the Appellate Court also refers to Federal Court Rulings I will be putting up three recent rulings including one involving Bryan Cave, (not Lin Wood or Luke Lantta) where they recently had over turned an over $60 million dollar jury award based on three emails that were not produced. All interesting reading and ALL above my head. I look forward to your input on this and does email make lawsuits much more complex for all of us?

April 22, 2010 Howard K. Stern files Notion of Hearing on his Special Objection to Jurisdiction for June 4, 2010 at 2:30 PM in the 80th District Court for Harris County.

NEWEST FILINGS APRIL 23, 2010 IN TEXAS

April 23, 2010 TMZ Motion Requesting Permission to Participate of TMZ’s California lawyer.

April 23, 2010 TMZ Unopposed Motion filed with Request to Participate of TMZ’s California lawyer.

April 23, 2010 Realttor Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Controlling Authority Related to Original Proceeding. My take this is the beginning of having Stern’s Appeal dismissed.

As I have said before I am real impressed with Judge Weiman and think he will move this case along now. I think Howard K. Stern’s appeal is now moot based on the fact that no Special Master should have ever been Ordered in this case. I think Craig Ball will be glad to dump this case, he could not tell Judge Lindsay she was wrong no matter what he thought of her Orders.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
April 22, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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 blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: 280th District State Court Harris County, 80th District Court of Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, First Court of Appeals in Houston Texas, First Court of Appeals Texas, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Judge Tony Lindsay, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Special Master Craig Ball, Texas First Court of Appeals, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Judge Wieman of the 80th District Court of Harris County in Houston has put the trial date for Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Art Harris et. al. off until September 27, 2010b due to a conflict by the Court for September 21, 2010.

This will move the last conference set by the trial coordinator also back from September 11 to September 13, 2010.

CBS FILES MOTION TO SEVER THEM FROM HARRIS COUNTY SUIT AND MAKE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINAL APPEALABLE

After weeks of negotiating with Virgie Arthur’s attorney, Neil McCabe, CBS has filed a Motion to Sever and make the summary judgment final and thus able for Virgie Arthur to Appeal. However, since CBS wants to Sever from ALL of the other defendants where will this leave Art Harris’ need for a lawyer especially with his hard drives in question by the Court. Could Jackson Walker state, there is a conflict of interest now that they have seen part of Special Master Craig Ball’s questions, and if so can they now dump Art Harris as a client and leave him hanging by himself? If Neil McCabe agrees and Babcock leaves Harris, will the fact that Harris did really appear to have destroy evidence on his computers and external hard drives, will that help Arthur win? The Motion has been set via Notice of Submission for March March 29, 2010 at 8:00 AM plenty of time for Arthur to agree and join CBS or for Arthur to Oppose. This is going to get interesting. What if Babcock feels there is an ethical reason to remove CBS from Harris?

In other news Virgie Arthur filed her Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur Motions for Sanctions today, March 17, 2010. For those that state that Arthur’s counsel never quotes case law or decisions in Arthur’s filing this one is packed full of those references.

LATE NEWS ARTHUR JOINS CBS’ MOTION TO SEVER

FILINGS ON MARCH 18, 2010 IN HARRIS COUNTY STATE DISTRICT COURT. THIS INCLUDE THE PROPOSED CBS-ARTHUR ORDER TO SEVER CBS, AND THAT ART HARRIS HAS RESET HIS HEARING WITH AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING UNTIL APRIL 30, 2010 ON HIS MOTION FOR PROTECTION.

I have not had time to go through all of the cases quoted but will do so and list those that I feel have a direct correlation to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions on Stern and his lead counsel L. Lin Wood.

I don’t think there is “gamesmanship” between Wood and Neil McCabe as there is in most cases lawyers argue over, this is getting personal and I would not expect either one of them to invite the other to dinner EVER. Nor do I think at the end of these litigations that either will ever have a good word or thought for the other. That said Wood did send sincere condolences upon John M. O’Quinn’s tragic death so this to might just be “gamesmanship”. I still remember what Joe Jamail said upon O’Quinn’s death that they were never enemies that for a time O’Quinn had a picture of the two of them in O’Quinn’s office. However what stuck out to me is Jamail saying the ONLY enemy he ever had was the lawyer on the other side of any case. Thus when you get to attorneys at the level most of these operate in, the upper echelon then there are few lawyers you have very much in common with; thus the saying that lawyers only friends or other lawyers.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
March 17, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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 blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: 80th Disctrict Court Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals Houston Texas, First Court of Appeals Texas, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Howard K. Stern mailed his Response to the First Court of Appeals on Friday, March 12 to be entered by the Appellate Court on March 15. Stern’s Response is to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions against Stern and attorney L. Lin Wood.

March 12, 2010 Response by Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit E filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit F filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

Status Conference held with the Honorable Larry Weiman of the 80th District Court of Harris County on March 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM.

Those in attendance in person:

Diana Marshall for Larry Birkhead
Neil McCabe for Virgie Arthur with a young associate that I did not get the name when Mr. McCabe introduced him.
One or two lawyers for TMZ not sure if it was Richard Hess and/or Harry Susman, whoever was there for TMZ did not talk at all during the conference.
A male attorney from Jackson Walker that I had never heard the name before and he did not speak during the conference either.

Those in attendance by phone conference:

L. Lin Wood for Howard K. Stern who was on vacation in Utah and on a day trip up a mountain but wanted to be present.
Luke Lantta for Howard K. Stern who was in the office in Atlanta Georgia
Rose Turner who was in my home in Gladewater Texas.
Charles “Chip” Babcock entered the telephone conference partial through the conference but did not speak during the conference hearing.

The conference stated at 3:30 PM and lasted until almost 5 PM, other than introducing myself and asking one question about the Special Master Craig Ball although I was part of the conference by phone I took notes.

The main parties talking with Judge Weiman were Mr. Wood and Mr. McCabe.

Diana Marshall coming in for two rambling comments, that I thought could have been better stated in one or two sentences. However, Ken thought when I told him that perhaps it was one of those misdirections to get off of her client, Larry Birkhead doing a deposition before any hearing for a Special Appearance on Jurisdiction that he filed or providing the server he uses for emails. If that was the purpose she succeeded in running out the clock and not having any deposition or production of doucments or naming an email server of her client brought up by the Court or the parties.

Ms. Marshall was a good friend of John O’Quinn’s had ran in his social circle, belong to the same country club and knew him very well, HOWEVER that said, she has stated before that she never forgets who butters her bread, the client, in this case Birkhead. Ms. Marshall seemed to side more with Mr. McCabe then she did with Mr. Wood, although I frankly got lost in part of the two long ramblings I felt she did toward the Court and of course the clock.

The judge impressed me he knew the statutes and he controls his courtroom, he is cordial to all but he is a very smart guy and had a beautiful voice.

At one time they were referring to a Rule 11 agreement between Stern and Arthur that had been put in the record in 2008, Wood did not have a copy with him and Mr. McCabe did have it but was going to go through the file to pull it out, and INSTANTLY the judge had his copy from the jacket of documents he had related to the case and read it into the record himself. Now that was impressive to me and showed he had read all of the filings and anything else that might come up on Friday.

Mr. Wood pushed for a hearing on the long pending Special Appearance of his client, Judge Weiman asked if there had been a hearing at all on the Special Appearances and Wood and McCabe said something like briefly in December 2008. The Court spent time on Howard K. Stern’s deposition on both jurisdiction and merits asking at one time in order to move the case along would Mr. Wood be willing to have two depositions, one for jurisdiction and then if needed one for the merits of the case later.

The Court then asked why something in regards to Howard K. Stern’s deposition had not been decided before this time, and that brought up could Steve Sadow, Stern’s criminal attorney be there, which McCabe had previously not wanted and Wood had insisted on it. Mr. McCabe very quickly said he would be willing for Mr. Sadow to be present as long as he abides by Texas state statute, which allowed him to be there but not to talk, make co

Tags: 80th District Court of Harris County, Amamda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS - Entertainment Tonight, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chrystal Baker, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals Texas, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Houston Texas, Howard K Stern, Jackson Walker LLP, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Ken and Rose Turner, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, QV - Queen of Vondonia, Richard Hess Esq., Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., Supreme Court of Texas, Sweet Havana, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur, Yvonne Barnhart Waddle, Yvonne Waddle

The Court site for the 80th District Court in Harris County this morning granted Charles “Chip” Babcock Motion for Protection from the Discovery Requests by Virgie Arthur for CBS Studios Inc. – Entertainment Tonight

I am assuming this is based on the Court has still not decided on the Motion for Summary Judgment by CBS that has been pending in the same Court since November 16, 2009.

The Court Site shows Neil McCabe on behalf of Virgie Arthur had “hearings held” on to Motions to Compel Discovery. I “think” that the only two Motions pending today both were about CBS’ Motions.

As soon as we get more information we will post it here and also any paperwork.

February 26, 2010 Court Order Granting CBS Studios Inc. request to Stay Discovery and for Protection pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CBS last November.

CBS WINS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 26, 2010. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2009 WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT LATE TODAY AND THE COURT GRANTED THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED CBS FROM THE STATE CASE which in this case is called a no-evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in Texas since about 1997 .

80th District Court in Harris County Submissions Docket for November 16, 2009 READY DOCKET SUMMARY JUDGMENT – MOTION FOR FINAL (TRCP 166A) BUSH, AMANDA GRANTED

February 26, 2010 Letter to Judge Larry Weiman stating that CBS’ attorney argued in error that if the Court Dismissed the Summary Judgment then CBS could file an Interlocutory Appeal is incorrect per Neil McCabe’s letter to the Court this afternoon.

Here is a copy of the Original filing of CBS Motion for Final Summary Judgment filed in October 2009.

CBS Studios Inc. stated that what was in front of Judge Weiman was a “matter of law”, not of “defense”. It contains four things that any one of them had to be proven “matter of law”, which is what CBS stated in the Motion filed and why Judge Larry Weiman granted the Summary Judgment, in state Court the Judge only has to agree to ONE point in the Motion to issue a Summary Judgment and then the Court looks no further. In my research today I found that state Courts do not issue Memorandum of Law as we are used to in federal Court. The State Court also does not have to state in its Order even which one of the four listed that the Judge found sufficient to grant the Summary Judgment. and as such CBS was entitled to have the lawsuit against them being dismissed entirely. This was based on the fact that the Larry Hart Interview was the following per CBS Motion:

1. It is NOT defamatory as a matter of law
2. It is not “of and concerning” Virgie Arthur
3. Stature of limitations (I am unclear how the Court could rule this as a matter of law since the lawsuit was filed April 21, 2008 and the interview was both conducted and shown in May 2007). In Texas as most states the statute of limitation is 1 year.
4. Res Judicata (it can not be tried twice and as such is barred by a matter of law), However the federal court ruled the claims were different and although had some of the same defendants it was about different shows and articles, therefore Arthur would not be prejudiced to have a case in both federal court and State court.

Now that said and the fact the Court did find that at LEAST ONE of CBS’ claims to be true and as such the Judge did not grant a “partial Summary Judgment” on some of the four things listed. We know it was granted but will the Court tell us on which one or just that it was granted. As Beth pointed out State Courts do not go into the long memorandum of law we are used to reading in federal Courts. My research today shows the Appellate Courts recommend that judges keep the Order simple so they don’t accidentally open up a “matter of defense”.

What makes that significant? An example if you have say 12 priests beyond question in honesty on one side of a case and a known liar on the other side, that case could not be dismissed as a “matter of law” because it would be up to a jury to determine whom to believe.

So do you all see the ramifications on ALL of the defendants this will have? As one of you said, this could very well be the beginning of the end of the Harris County case, which would make all of the defendants breathe a great sigh of relief.

My further research today in Appellate Procedures here in Texas is that if Arthur decides to appeal, she must pay the filing fee as well as pay a bond that is sufficient to cover CBS’ Appellate costs if she loses. Simple Appeals began at about $30k, so you can imagine what this would cost up front to file an Appeal.

What are your thoughts?

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
February 26, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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 blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: 80th Disctrict Court, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Harris County 80th District Court, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Judge Larry Weiman Harris County Texas, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur