July 11, 2010 Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 1 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 2 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 3 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 12, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Unavailability for ANY hearings any party sets that he=lawyers for him also or for trial from August 1, 2010 through October 15, 2010. Yes this will cause all of the discovery hearings that Stern’s attorneys have to be present, depositions, and will move the trial back to probably close to the end of the year. Stern’s lawyers are going through the August 6, 2010 hearing so if his Special Appearance is granted he will be gone. My feeling is that since the articles were read in Texas like the federal court found in that suit, Stern will probably lose this, let’s hope not though.

Howard K. Stern’s Motion to consolidate cases for the alleged defamation and conspiracy and the Breach of Contract case. I am not sure what the statue is on this and will look up what is quoted. I can see the Court handling BOTH cases and allowing the discovery to go for both cases to conserve resources, however Stern already has set for August 6, 2010 as part of the hearing the very Rule 11 Agreement that this breach of contract is regarding. I guess this was a housekeeping Motion to get the same court I am not sure though if you can consolidate one case with 2 parties into a different case with multiple parties.

July 12, 2010 Howard K. Stern Submission ONLY for the Motions filed today to be set for July 26, 2010. Since Arthur did not agree to the Motions, I would think her response will ask for a hearing which will bring everything to a halt until the fall on this Texas case for discovery hearings, and depositions.

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS GRANTS HOWARD K. STERN’S WRIT OF MANDAMUS

July 12, 2010 First Court of Appeals grants Howard K. Stern Write of Mandamus in a thirty five page opinion. I have not read the opinion.

LATEST FILINGS IN HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS LAWSUIT

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Supplement in Opposition to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel. Exhibit A is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009. Exhibit B is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Oral Hearing for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM for the latest filings by Stern.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Letter to the First Court of Appeals filed with Arthur’s Motion of an En Banc hearing.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc with the First Court of Appeals Opinion released on July 1, 2010 pointing out what Arthur sees as factual errors in that Opinion.

July 14, 2010 Stephens’ Writ of Mandamus denied by the First Court of Appeals. IMO this changes the options available to the defendants who appear to not be covered under the Opinion granting the Writs for Stern and Harris. I notice this denial was handed down by the same panel that granted the other two Writs

LATEST FILINGS IN THE HARRIS COUNT 80TH DISTRICT COURT ON VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN ET. AL.

July 16, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Affidavit of Neil McCabe in support of Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

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
July 12, 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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dr. Kapoor, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chirstopher Smith Esq., Judge Larry Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Nancy Hamilton Esq., Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

May 25, 2010 Art Harris Supplemental Response to Rose Turner’s Reply to Art Harris Response to Turner’s Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties, Art Harris and Busystreet Production LLC.

May 26, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Reply to Art Harris Response to Arthur’s Motion for a Rehearing with the first Court of Appeals.

June 1, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Reply to Art Harris Supplemental Response to Rose Turner’s Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

An update on the records posted on the Court’s site over the holiday weekend that is a violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedures and that is allowed to be addressed by the Court under TRCP Rule 76a(2)(a)(2); “Documents in court files to which access is otherwise restricted by law”.

June 2, 2010 Rose Turner’s Motion to remove medical records from public site of Harris County based on RCP Rule 76a(2)(a)(2); “Documents in court files to which access is otherwise restricted by law”.

June 2, 1010 Rose Turner’s Request For Emergency telephone hearing if Judge Weiman wishes to talked to the parties as to how did these records get filed.

June 4, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s New Cause filed against Howard K. Stern in Harris County for Breach of Contract (the rule 11 agreement) in Harris County.

June 4, 2010 The Clerk of Court told me this morning that the records are going to be removed under TRCP Rule 76a(2)(a)(2); “Documents in court files to which access is otherwise restricted by law”. However, “justice” takes time, they were put up faster than what the Court can sign the Order to get them down. That investigation will begin as to who is responsible for this gross injustice of listing medical records that are protected by federal, state statues as well as the Agreed Protective Order that addresses the very issued of NOT filing medical records.

After this is done I will look at my legal options are since the records were protected under Federal and State law as well as being protected under the Agreed Protective Order in place for this case once the records are down. TMZ graciously offered to remove any links and or posts relating to this situation. However the fact remains that the records were purchased and are being passed around and posted on sites like Topix and free web sites like Angel Fire. First and foremost I am concentrating on remedying the situation and then assigning responsibility and what legal options are available to me.

The outpouring of sincere concern and even horror as to what occurred by both members of this site and also owners of other sites has meant a great deal to me this weekend. Thank you.

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
June 1, 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, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Linda Burrow Esq., Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Howard K. Stern cites fear of being “served” with a new lawsuit as reason to stay clear of Texas. One gets the feeling he actually might hate Texas the home of the “love of his life”, Anna Nicole Smith.

Here are the latest filings:

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit B filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit C filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit D filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit E filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit F filed with Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Quash deposition of Virgie Arthur in Houston Texas.

May 10, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Sur-Reply to TMZ – Harvey Levin Reply and Objections to Arthur’s Response to TMZ-Levin Motion for Summary Judgment.

May 11, 2010 Notice of TMZ – Levin Submission to Court to admit California lawyer Pro Hac Vice to the court set for May 17, 2010.

Filings from Last Week:

May 7, 2010 TMZ-Levin Objections and Motion to Strike Arthur’s exhibits in Arthur’s Response to TMZ-Levin Motion for Summary Judgment.

May 7, 2010 Court Order New Docket Control Schedules for Texas state Court case.

May 7, 2010 Court Order governing Art Harris Protection from Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel and what Harris must turn over not to be shared with any Pro Se litigants in this case.

Filings from this Week:

May 12, 2010 Defendant Rose Turner’s Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties for Busystreet Productions LLC.

May 12, 2010 Turner’s Submission for May 24, 201 on Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit E field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 Harris’ Notice Notice of Submission on Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

May 13, 2010 First Court of Appeals Request for Response from Art Harris due by May 21, 2010 if he disputes any of the factual information in Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Rehearing.

May 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Supplement to Motion to Quash Deposition and for Protective Order.

May 14, 2101 Stern Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Supplement to Motion to Quash Deposition and for Protective Order.

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
May 12, 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 District Court Harris County Texas, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Nancy Hamilton Esq., Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Susman Godfrey LLP, Texas, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

It was not until this morning that the Harris County Court Site was updated, showing that Virgie Arthur won some and Art Harris won “some”, but what? To see this go to the Harris County Court web site at http://apps.jims.hctx.net/courts/. Pick the Oral Hearings Docket Inquiry on that page then pick the date of April 30, 2010 from the drop down menu and the 80th Court from that drop down menu and you will see the following: 10:30 HRS 200824181 READY DOCKET COMPEL ANS TO INTERROGS – MTN (TRCP 168) MCCABE, NEIL C. GRANTED IN PART And: 10:30 HRS 200824181 READY DOCKET MOTION FOR PROTECTION FROM DISCOVERY REQUEST BABCOCK, CHARLES LYNDE IV GRANTED IN PART

I look back at the Rita Cosby suit and how quick her lawyer had her hard drive imaged at the start of that lawsuit and I wonder if in August once Craig Ball’s questions came out about deleting thousands of documents did Art Harris’ lawyers at Jackson Walker have his hard drives imaged by their expert Kroll Ontrack. Which by the way was Cosby’s expert as well. If they did and that company did an Affidavit as they did in the Cosby case then I am sure Judge Larry Weiman gave the hard drives back to Harris to destroy. If they have not already had Kroll Ontrack image the hard drives, which I have not seen any affidavit that they have done the images, I would still bet that Judge Weiman would order the hard drives sent back to Chip Babcock the lead attorney for Harris with the assurance that just like in the Cosby case the imaged hard drives would go into their safe until all of this is resolved.

I went back AGAIN and read In Re Weekley Homes to see the gold standard of electronic discovery guidelines for Texas. I am still betting that future court decisions will rest on this standard for all Texas Courts. For the first time I caught and read the last sentence of that Opinion by the Supreme Court of Texas. “We note that HFG is not precluded from seeking to rectify the deficiencies we have identified.” That translate in this case to “We note that Virgie Arthur is not precluded from seeking to rectify the deficiencies we have identified.” That is why earlier I predicted that the document production would be rolled back to December 2008 and started over again.

Now let’s look at the requirements of In re Weekley Homes for an independent forensic expert under those guidelines to report on imaged hard drives. “In this mandamus proceeding, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering four of the defendant’s employees to turn over their computer hard drives to forensic experts for imaging, copying, and searching for deleted emails. Because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the particular characteristics of the electronic storage devices involved, the familiarity of its experts with those characteristics, or a reasonable likelihood that the proposed search methodology would yield the information sought, and considering the highly intrusive nature of computer storage search and the sensitivity of the subject matter, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion.”

So we have the following to be “cured” on the do over that In re Weekley Homes allows to happen:

1. Arthur needs to be able to verify that she has obtained the “particular characteristics of the electronic storage devices involved.” Arthur is asking for all of that in the new Request for Discovery and Motion to Compel. See Questions 5 through 8. So on Arthur’s do over she is asking for this information. Also remember in the April 22, 2010 that the First Court of Appeals stated that the Court of Appeals was; “‘Conditionally’ granted the petition for the Writ of Mandamus. The Court of appeals stated on page 29 at footnote 9; “Harris argues that, while Arthur’s request for production did ask for emails, the requests did not specify the form in which the requesting party wanted the emails produced. This argument is not supported by the record. The instructions in the requests for production stated the form in which electronic files should be produced.”

2. Arthur needs to cure or clarify the forensic expert does have “the familiarity of its experts with those characteristics”. Arthur has already done this with Craig Ball. You may not like him but he still trains most of the judges in Texas and almost all of the forensic experts in the U. S. and even the U. K. have been trained or have attended seminars with Craig Ball so they all have respect for him. Thus Arthur in my opinion has met this standard In re Weekley Homes.

3. Arthur must also in the do over show that there is a “reasonable likelihood that the proposed search methodology would yield the information sought.” Or in this case confirm that thousands of documents were deleted.

Now my guess is that this will go back to the Court of Appeals under the do over Weekley Homes provides to the Texas Courts. I have no reason to doubt that Judge Weiman did not narrow the list of people to look for here as he did with Lin Wood, the attorney for Howard K. Stern, thus eliminating any “overly broad of discovery” issues. I think discovery will continue including an up coming day three of my deposition. To date McCabe and Jackson Walker attorneys have had all of the 12 hours of my deposition and now each gets to go back and ask clarifying questions I believe.

May 3, 2010 Art Harris Motion to Dismiss Case before Supreme Court of Texas without Prejudice as Moot.

So do I like Art Harris, I don’t know the guy, should he expect a Christmas card from me NOPE. Why? Because of him this lawsuit and discovery is going to go on like the energizer bunny and the filings are going to become very technical and time consuming for everyone.

On the TMZ filing due April 30th that they “passed” or ask the court to “pass” on the May 5, 2010 hearing for their Motion for Final Summary Judgment could be for a multitude of reasons. My “guess” is that it has something to do with the Pro Hac Vice pending for the California attorney, or to get the full team up to speed. Or Harry Susman of Susman Godfrey might think the filings they did on behalf of TMZ.com and Harvey Levin and Arthur’s filings speak for themselves and thus the Court can decide by the agreement of the attorneys to rule only on the filings without the need to run up legal fees that a hearing would add to all of their clients’ bill.

May 3, 2010 Notice of Submission by TMZ.com and Harvey Levin for May 10, 2010 without Oral Hearing.

When the Order comes out next week that probably Charles Babcock and Neil McCabe have been told to work together to prepare one for the Court to sign as is often done in win some and lose some hearings, then we will know who won what and who lost what in Friday’s hearing.

Remember folks what looks like common sense to all of us is not how the Court operates and with that said, I still like Judge Weiman and believe he is and will continue to go by the letter of the law and to unravel this mess.

I don’t know for sure and will look it up but I think Arthur has missed the filing deadline with the Court of Appeals to try to keep CBS and Entertainment Tonight in the case. So we have two parties out and the rest of us on a hold and see pattern.

Please go back and read the opinions I have listed in Federal Courts about deleting documents from computers since September 2009, in fact I will list them here again today in just a bit as I am also reading them in more depth.

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
May 1, 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 District Court Houston Texas, 80th District Court of Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, computer storage, Craig Ball, Craig Ball Electronic Forensic Expert, Dannielynn, E-Discovery, electronic discovery guidelines, Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals, First Court of Appeals Texas, forensic expert Craig Ball, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honarble Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, In re Art Harris, In re Weekley Homes, intrusive nature of computer storage, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Weiman, Kroll Ontrack, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, mandamus, Neil McCabe, Rita Cosby, Rose Turner, Supreme Court of Texas, Susman and Godfrey, Susman Godfrey, Texas Supreme Court, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, trial court abused its discretion, trial court discretion, Virgie Arthur, Weekley Homes, Writ of Mandamus

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

After being unable to reach an agreed settlement between Virgie Arthur and Teresa Stephens that was agreeable to both parties in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, TMZ et. al. defamation case and conspiracy to defame.

Today, March 31, 2010 Arthur has filed a Notice of Nonsuit in regards to dismissing Teresa Stephens from the Harris County Case

I do not expect any of the conditions of why a settlement was unable to be reached. However if either side does release a statement in regards to Stephens being released from the lawsuit pending in the Harris County 80th District Court by the Honorable Larry Weiman, Rose Speaks.com will attempt to get an on the record comment from both sides.

We here at Rose Speaks.com are glad to see Ms. Stephens, a blogger who lives in Texas, dismissed after almost two years and wish her all of the best.

In other filings with he court filed with the Court after 5 P. M on March 30, 2010, Art Harris has filed a “Conditional Motion to Quash” the deposition of Turner based on three reasons. The deposition is scheduled for Friday April 2, 2010.

Well let the games begin… In a filing full of false information (And God I hate to side against a good law firm), Amanda Bush on behalf of her client filed a Motion to Quash Deposition of Turner based on “At the time of filing this Motion, counsel for Harris has not received a response. On information and belief, counsel for Harris believes that Turner intends to quash the videotaping of her deposition late Thursday, April 1, 2010, and the Court is closed on Friday, April 2, 2010 for the holiday.” I hope this is one damn good witness Ms. Bush has and one with a LOT of money that can fight off perjury charges and a Civil Suit, because that statement is an out and out lie to the Court by an officer of the Court, which last I checked was pretty serious. Shooting back Virgie Arthur filed Turner had NEVER said and DID not intend to file any Motion to Quash. For those lawyers needing a refresher course I had until 5 PM today to file a Motion to Quash and Harris’ counsel knows that. The holiday, Mmmmm every lawyer that intended to be here had confirmed including Ms. Bush’s boss that he would even stay to Saturday to finish all of this up. So to say I did not want to be cross examined by him is bull shit, I asked if there was any way because of my illness if they could trade out time and try for both sides to wrap this up in six hours if not I would continue to do the best I could through Saturday. Folks this is why I am so angry at Harris for deleting those emails and documents, it seems the only person everyone agrees has not is me… I am hoping we can get an emergency hearing tomorrow and proceed. However it might be Harris’ attorneys strategy to stall until I am on pain management medication and can’t give a deposition before the hearing to bust Art Harris on April 30. What does a well respected Law Firm do when a client screws them over and leaves them to clean up the mess. I guess some consolation is that Harris is now in trouble in Florida in the Haleigh Cummings case for the very same situation he finds himself in the soup kettle in Texas. I will have a lot more to say about Harris’ credibility among his peers of independent investigative reporters and where he actually is when “out of town researching a big murder or case”.

LATEST PAPERS FILED IN HARRIS COUNTY COURT

April 1, 2010 Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit E filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

March 31, 2010 Rose Turner’s complete email exchange with Amanda Bush which was not filed by Art Harris.

I have not been sent a copy for some reason, but I have now received some confirmation of available for counsel to attend a video taped deposition of me in HOUSTON TEXAS by Art Harris’ counsel in their offices in Houston as early as April 5, 2010 or April 12, 2010.

April 1, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit A filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit B filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit C filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

Folks I have never made it any secret from any of you are the attorneys that I was working diligently with the counsel for Virgie Arthur since last summer to reach a settlement to protect the rights of bloggers on this site to remain anonymous.

There are some papers concerning the Harris County Case up on the private forums for members only and will be put here on the blog as soon as they show up on the Harris County District Court website.

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 30, 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 District Court Harris County, Amanda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, Exclusive Rose Speaks.com, Harris County District Court, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Ken and Rose Turner, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Richard Hess Esq., Rose Speaks, Rose Speaks Exclusive, Rose Turner, Settlement in Harris County Defamation Case, Susman Godfrey LLP, Teresa Stephens, The Bald Truth, 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