Dunn Et Al Marshall Lawsuit Document 102611

8/3/2019 Dunn Et Al Marshall Lawsuit Document 102611

1/6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C.;

AND GIL RAMIREZ, JR.

Plaintiffs,

v. Case. No. 4:10-CV-04872

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT; LAWRENCE MARSHALL;

EVA JACKSON; AND RHJ-JOC, INC.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF, GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, LLCS REPLY TO FORT BEND

MECHANICALS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff, Gil Ramirez Group, LLC, files this Reply to Fort Bend Mechanicals Response

to Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Civil Contempt and Motion to Compel.

1. Plaintiff is entitled to a complete response to Subpoena Request Number 7 which requests

evidence of payment to Larry Marshall or an entity affiliated with him.

2. The yellow reimbursement folders marked for copying contained checks to Larry

Marshall written by employees or owners of Fort Bend Mechanical and which were

submitted for reimbursement by Fort Bend Mechanical. Plaintiff seeks a copy of the

contents of the yellow folders.

3. Before filing the motion, Plaintiff was willing to set aside its fight for all of the

documents originally offered for copying by Fort Bend Mechanical but fell outside the

subpoena in order to receive the documents clearly responsive to the subpoena.

Specifically, as of October 13, Plaintiff only sought a very narrow selection of documents

Case 4:10-cv-04872 Document 64 Filed in TXSD on 10/26/11 Page 1 of 6


2/6

squarely within the subpoena. Please see two letters dated October 13 and marked as

Exhibits 21 and 22 to the original motion and this reply. In the letters, Plaintiff is no

longer pursuing documents outside of the subpoena but continues to seek, specifically,

copies of all payments to Larry Marshall which Fort Bend Mechanical made directly or

indirectly when it reimbursed its employees and owners for payments to Marshall or his

campaign. To this day, Plaintiff still does not have either a denial from Fort Bend

Mechanical that there are no more responsive documents to Request 7 or the proof of

payments made to Larry Marshall whether directly or indirectly.

4. Fort Bend Mechanical misinterprets the list of documents Plaintiff selected for copying.

In a letter to Fort Bend Mechanical dated October 7 and attached as Exhibit 20 to the

original motion and this reply, Plaintiff provided Fort Bend Mechanical a list that set

forth: (1) a description of each box inspected; (2) what contents, if any, was marked for

copying; (3) to which request, if any, it was responsive; and (4) whether it was produced

or removed from the boxes given to the copy service. In its Response to the Motion for

Civil Contempt, Fort Bend Mechanical asserts that Plaintiff wanted copies of documents

such as Pearland Public Safety, Brazoria County Detention Center, etc. This is not true.

Fort Bend Mechanical did not understand the list provided to it. A portion of the list is

set forth below to illustrate the point:

No. Description of Box Contents Marked for Copying Request

No.

Removed or

Produced

1 P earland P ublic Safety, B razoria

County Detentions Center, Fort

Bend County Jail Project Files,

Printer manuals, thermostat

manuals, plans for HCC job

No Documents

2



3/6

No. Description of Box Contents Marked for Copying Request

No.

Removed or

Produced

2 Accounts P ayable January through

June 2009

No Documents

3 Accounts P ayable January throughJune 2009

No Documents

4 HVAC service receipts and bids

2007

No Documents

5 Job receipts for school building

projects

No Documents

6 Accounts Payable July to

December 2008

1. American Express Credit Card

Statements

2. Bank of America Credit Card

Statements

Removed

7 Accounts Receivable File labeled Ms. Joyce Home

33192 containing an invoice with

Joyce Moss Clays address. Fort

Bend Mechanical Paid Reed Crane &

Rigging for moving a generator into

Ms. Clays home. No invoice

indicating that Fort Bend Mechanical

sought payment from Joyce Moss

Clay for generator or crane.

7, 8, 10 Removed

5. The boxes which contained documents marked for copying were also shaded in the table

in order to call attention to the key documents quickly.

6. The parties worked well together until Plaintiffs copy service was not permitted to pick-

up the documents marked for copying at the inspection. Thereafter, as stated many times1

before, most of the documents selected for copying and which Fort Bend Mechanical had

previously offered up for copying were removed from the 11 boxes set aside for the copy

service. Since October 3, Plaintiff has been trying to get documents selected at the

In regard to the publicity on this matter, Plaintiff does not control the media. The filings1

in this case appear on Pacer which is available to the public to view.

3



4/6

document inspection on September 30. Plaintiff even agreed to abandon its request for

documents outside the subpoena if Fort Bend Mechanical would produce the documents

responsive to the subpoena.

7. Plaintiff has sent numerous letters, attempted to set-up telephone conferences, made

telephone calls, made reminder telephone calls, and abandoned its request for documents

which fell outside the subpoena in an effort to get the documents responsive to the

subpoena. The effort to obtain the documents has been going on for over a month since

the subpoena was first served. Plaintiff continues to press this motion because Plaintiff

has good reason to believe that there are checks or payments to Larry Marshall, his

campaign or an entity affiliated with him, that were paid directly or reimbursed by Fort

Bend Mechanical. Plaintiff is entitled to these documents in response to Subpoena

Request 7.

Prayer

For these reasons, Plaintiff prays that the Court order Fort Bend Mechanical to

produce documents responsive to subpoena request 7, produce all other documents

marked for copying, pay $1375 in attorneys fees, and for all other relief to which it is

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

BRAZIL & DUNN

By: /s/ Kelly G. Prather

Chad W. Dunn TBN 24036507

Fed. I.D. No. 33467

K. Scott Brazil TBN 02934050

Fed. I.D. No. 2585

4



5/6

4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530

Houston, Texas77068

Telephone: (281) 580-6310

Facsimile: (281) 580-6362

E-Mail: [email protected]

E-Mail: [email protected]

THE GREENWOOD PRATHER

LAW FIRM

Kelly Greenwood Prather

S.D. TX. No 21829

State Bar No. 00796670

1300 McGowen Street

Houston, Texas 77004

(713) 333-3200 telephone

(713) 621-1449 facsimile

E-Mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of Plaintiff, The Gil Ramirez Group, LLCs Reply to Fort Bend

Mechanicals Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Civil Contempt and Motion to

Compel was served as set forth below in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

on this the 26th day of October, 2011.

Mr. Arturo G. Michel Via Electronic Case Filing

Mr. John M. Hopkins

Thompson & Horton LLP

3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000


(713) 554-6760 Telephone

(713) 583-9928 - Facsimile

Mr. Michael Stanley Via Electronic Case Filing

Stanley, Frank & Rose

7026 Old Katy Road

Suite 259


5



6/6

(713) 980-4381 - Telephone

(713) 980-1179 - Facsimile

Mr. Mike McGann Via Facsimile 281-530-5480

Attorney at Law and Electronic Case Filing

2211 Norfolk, Suite 400


(713) 521-2743 - Telephone

(281) 530-5480 - Facsimile

/s/ Kelly G. Prather

Kelly Greenwood Prather

6
