Preview
Filed: 4/25/2023 11:20 AM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 74986839
By: Lisa Kelly
4/25/2023 11:39 AM
CAUSE NO. 23-CV-0488
3M COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHAEL B. MARTIN and §
MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, §
§
Respondents. 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
PETITIONER’S AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING
Please take notice that Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Authorization to Conduct Rule
202 Pre-Suit Depositions (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is set for oral hearing on June 1, 2023, at
2:00p.m., before the 10th Judicial District Court of Galveston, Texas.
Dated: April 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
Winston & Strawn LLP
/s/Denise Scofield
Denise Scofield
Texas Bar No. 00784934
dscofield@winston.com
Brandon W. Duke
Texas Bar No. 240994476
bduke@winston.com
800 Capitol, Suite 2400
Houston, Texas 77002
Steve Grimes (pro hac application pending)
sgrimes@winston.com
Whitney Adams (pro hac application pending)
wiadams@winston.com
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
(312) 558-5600
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
3M COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was served on all known parties and counsel of record by electronic service in accordance with the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
Diane F. Burgess
David L. Miller
MILLER, SCAMARDI & CARRABBA, PC
6525 Washington Avenue
Houston, Texas 77007
Email: dburgess@msc-lawyer.com
Email: dmiller@msc-lawyer.com
ATTORNERYS FOR RESPONDENTS
/s/ Denise Scofield
2
Filed: 3/31/2023 1:39 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 74219819
By: Lisa Kelly
3/31/2023 3:27 PM
CAUSE NO. 23-CV-0488
3M COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHAEL B. MARTIN and §
MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, §
§
Respondents. Galveston County – 10th District Court
§
SUPPLEMENTAL
VERIFIED PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
CONDUCT RULE 202 PRE-SUIT DEPOSITIONS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Petitioner 3M Company (“3M”) files this Verified Petition for Authorization to Conduct
Rule 202 Pre-Suit Depositions (the “Petition”) for the purpose of investigating a potential claim
or suit. Specifically, 3M asks the Court for permission to take depositions of Respondents Michael
B. Martin (“Martin”) and a corporate representative of Martin Walton Law Firm (“Martin
Walton”) and to serve Martin and Martin Walton with a deposition notice requiring the production
of documents via subpoena duces tecum.
I.
PARTIES
1. 3M is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place
of business in Minnesota.
2. Michael B. Martin is an individual who resides and maintains a law office in
Galveston County, Texas. He may be served with process at 1308 Greenbriar Dr., Friendswood,
Texas 77546.
3. Martin Walton is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the
State of Texas, registered to do business in Texas, and with its principal place of business located
in Galveston County, Texas. Martin Walton may be served with process at 699 S. Friendswood
Drive, Suite 107 Houston, Texas, in Galveston County, Texas.
II.
JURISDICTION
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because, among other things: (1) the
conduct that forms the basis of the potential claims that 3M needs to investigate relates to conduct
and business activities that occurred in Galveston County, Texas; (2) the potential claims that 3M
may have against Martin and Martin Walton are for an amount within the jurisdictional limits of
this Court; (3) Martin resides in Galveston County; and (4) Martin Walton’s principal office is
located in Galveston County, Texas.
III.
VENUE
5. Venue is proper in Galveston County pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 15.002 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.2 because Martin resides in
Galveston County, Texas, and Martin Walton’s principal office is in Galveston County, Texas.
IV.
GROUNDS FOR PETITION
6. Martin is a licensed attorney who has practiced in Texas for over 35 years and is a
member of Martin Walton. He claims to have represented hundreds of plaintiffs suffering from
occupational lung diseases, such as silicosis and coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, or “black lung,”
2
and advertises that he specializes in respirator (or dust mask) product liability claims. 1 Glenn
Hammond is an attorney based in Pikeville, Kentucky, and has his own firm, Glenn Martin
Hammond Law Office. Hammond has no history of prosecuting respirator product liability cases.
Rather, he focuses on workers’ compensation, social security disability, personal injury and other
claims. Johnny Givens is an attorney based in Mississippi who previously worked at a firm
practicing product liability litigation, and as of July 2019, opened his own firm to focus specifically
on respirator claims—in particular, dust mask liability claims against 3M.
Mike Martin
7. Martin has a documented history of pursuing fraudulent cases against 3M and—
once caught—leaving his unwitting clients to pick up the pieces, looking out only for himself. In
2002, Martin was hired to file silicosis claims against 3M on behalf of a client, Clark Kirkland,
who had been diagnosed with silicosis injuries the year prior. On the eve of the statute f limitations
expiring, Martin overnighted a complaint for filing in Georgia state court—despite not being
licensed to practice in Georgia or seeking the court’s permission to file. After Martin missed the
statute of limitations, the Georgia court directed Martin to dismiss the suit, which he did a few
days later. Martin then concealed the Georgia dismissal from his client and waited nine months,
long after the statute of limitations had expired, to re-file the case. Martin’s client, Kirkland,
alleged that Martin then suggested that Kirkland lie about when he discovered his injury which
prompted Kirkland to report Martin’s misconduct to U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of the Southern
District of Texas.
1
The 3M products at issue in these actions are government certified and approved respirators;
however, for the purposes of this application they will be referred to as “dust masks,” the term
widely used by coal miner plaintiffs and the lawyers who represent them.
3
8. Martin then took steps to conceal his misconduct—first seeking to withdraw from
the case (which Judge Jack denied), and second, moving to dismiss Kirkland’s claim (without his
client’s knowledge or consent), claiming that Kirkland in fact had not worn a respirator when
exposed to silica. See Ex. 2, In re Silica Prod. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 642–43 (S.D.
Tex. 2005). Judge Jack declined to rule on the motion to dismiss and ordered Martin to appear for
a court-monitored deposition regarding Kirkland’s claim against 3M and his allegations against
Martin. Id. at 643. As Judge Jack wrote in her opinion chastising Martin for putting his own
interests over those of his client, during the deposition, Martin “succumbed to the urge to torpedo
his client’s case” by attempting “to show Mr. Kirkland’s suit would have been time-barred prior
to Mr. Martin’s engagement.” Id. at 644. Kirkland then successfully sued Martin for legal
malpractice and obtained $150,000 in damages. 2
9. In another claim against 3M a few years later, U.S. District Judge Marian Payson
of the Western District of New York chastised Martin for his cavalier treatment of the court’s
orders. Judge Payson sanctioned Martin and found that attorneys’ fees were warranted for
Martin’s “obvious disregard of his obligations.” 3
The Current Scheme
10. As early as 2016, attorney Glenn Hammond began to solicit current and former coal
workers in and around Pikeville, Kentucky, as potential clients to bring dust mask claims against
3M. Hammond first solicited his prior clientele—coal workers who had filed (successfully or
unsuccessfully) workers’ compensation or social security claims alleging a black lung diagnosis.
Many of those compensation claims were filed decades ago. The solicitation then expanded to
2
See Kirkland v. Martin, No. 4:10-CV-2865, 2012 WL 3930318, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2012).
3
See Coene v. 3M Co., No. 10-CV-6546G, 2015 WL 5513323, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015).
4
reach other individuals in Kentucky who had previously worked in a mine. By early 2020, long
after many of those claims had expired under Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations, Martin
and (and then later Givens) joined Hammond in suing 3M in Kentucky courts.
11. Martin, Hammond, and Givens did not vet the claims before filing them against
3M. Instead, Hammond, Martin, and Givens relied on employees who were not licensed to
practice law and with no experience in respirator liability claims to conduct “case intakes.” In
some instances, Hammond encouraged people he knew to sign up for a dust mask claim and
coached them prior to coming to his office for an intake to lie about their mask usage, for example,
instructing them to say they always used a 3M mask and wore a mask 100% of the time they
worked in the mine. In other instances, Hammond joined an ongoing intake and encouraged the
individual to tell the same lie—reassuring them that no one could prove they never wore a mask
decades ago.
12. During intake, clients signed a contract for attorney fees providing that Hammond
would receive up to 40% of any award obtained from 3M on that individual’s behalf. Hammond,
Martin, and Givens agreed separately to split the award amongst themselves.
13. Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office sent Martin, at his office in Texas, electronic
copies of case files for each Hammond, Martin, Givens client. See Ex. 1 (Motion to Stay
Hammond Law Offices Dust Mask Cases (Mar. 23, 2023) (“Mot. to Stay”)), ¶ 1.
14. Between March 2020 and January 2023, Martin, Hammond, and Givens
collectively filed and/or prosecuted 19 complaints in Kentucky asserting more than 850 claims
against 3M on behalf of coal workers or their estates. Each alleged that the claimants had suffered
from black lung, used a 3M mask to protect themselves from exposure to coal dust while working
5
in coal mines, and did not know of their injury or that it was allegedly caused by the supposedly
defective 3M mask more than one year before filing their claim.
15. Martin, Hammond, and Givens filed and/or prosecuted claims on behalf of virtually
every coal worker that went through the intake process at Hammond’s firm—regardless of whether
they had a meritorious, or even colorable, claim. The attorneys filed and prosecuted claims on
behalf of clients whom they affirmatively knew—based on the intake process and/or the
individual’s records from a prior claim—had never been diagnosed with black lung, never wore a
mask while working in the mine, and/or did not use a mask made by 3M. They also filed claims
on behalf of coal workers who had signed up as dust mask clients years earlier and whose claims
were far outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations when filed. Martin, Hammond, and
Givens also filed and prosecuted claims on behalf of deceased coal workers whom they knew had
died (and who had an administrator assigned to their estate more than two years before a complaint
was filed), such that the applicable statute of limitations on their claim had unquestionably expired.
16. In January 2023, Martin admitted in a written communication that he knew many
of the claims brought by Hammond, Givens, and Martin against 3M were “frivolous.” Until
Hammond’s false affidavit (drafted in large part by Martin) was found to have been materially
false by a Kentucky judge, as described further below, Martin did nothing to try to address this
fact—indeed, he permitted new cases to be filed under his name by Hammond.
17. Martin, Hammond, and Givens prosecuted fraudulent claims against 3M as part of
an ongoing scheme to drive up 3M’s litigation costs and force larger settlements. These attorneys
knew that by increasing the inventory of cases filed against 3M, they were increasing the amount
of money 3M would have to spend defending the cases and the risk exposure 3M would assign to
the case inventory—thereby increasing the pressure on 3M to settle cases.
6
18. The motive for bringing and prosecuting these fraudulent claims was threefold: (1)
if the fraud went undetected, Martin, Givens, and Hammond stood to recoup a percentage of
settlements or court awards for the fraudulent cases; (2) they could use the cases as “bargaining
chips” in settlement negotiations with 3M; and (3) even if the fraudulent claims were uncovered
in the future, they would have already served the purpose of driving up settlement values.
19. To conceal the fraudulent claims and the underlying scheme, Martin, Hammond,
and Givens prepared and served interrogatory responses on behalf of certain clients that contained
false statements about the client’s mask usage and the type of mask used. 3M is aware that Givens
instructed at least one client to lie in a deposition about his claims. And, in numerous cases, when
a client’s deposition drew near, Martin, Hammond, and Givens canceled the deposition days before
it was scheduled then dismissed the case and lied to some of their clients about the reason for
dismissing the case—. To date, Martin, Hammond, and Givens have dismissed 16 of the 53 claims
from their initial March 2020 complaint alone. Martin, Hammond, and Givens knew at the time
that at least several of those dismissed claims (initially filed by Hammond and later joined by
Martin and Givens) were fraudulent.
20. On February 17, 2023, Martin, Hammond, and Givens moved to dismiss without
prejudice 44 additional claims (out of 470 total clams) from the second, third, and fourth
complaints that they had filed in early 2021. In those motions (filed in multiple courts), Martin,
Hammond, and Givens admitted that none of the 44 claimants as to which their motions were filed
had been diagnosed with black lung at the time their claim was filed—despite representing in the
complaints that each suffered from this disease, showing that neither Martin, Hammond, nor
Givens had engaged in pre-suit investigation required under Kentucky law and the rules of
professional responsibility. When 3M opposed and requested a hearing about the request to enter
7
dismissals without prejudice, Martin, Hammond, and Givens reversed course, sought to withdraw
their motions to dismiss to avoid judicial scrutiny into their knowledge that the claims were false,
and chose to continue prosecuting claims they had just weeks earlier admitted were invalid in
judicial filings.
21. On March 9, 2023, a judge presiding over one of the dust mask claims filed by
Martin, Hammond, and Givens in Pike County, Kentucky, granted a motion for summary judgment
in favor of 3M, dismissing one of their earlier-filed fraudulent claims—Wilson v. 3M Company,
No. 22-CI-812 (Pike Cir. Ct.) (“Wilson”)—on statute of limitations grounds. The statute of
limitations in Kentucky is one year, and for a latent injury, the statute runs when the plaintiff “knew
or should have known” of his injury and that the defendant’s conduct “may” have caused it. In
opposing summary judgment, Hammond, Martin, and Givens submitted an affidavit from Wilson,
as well as one drafted by Hammond and Martin, and signed by Hammond.
22. The judge initially denied the motion but 3M raised sufficient suspicions as to the
veracity of Hammond’s and his client’s affidavits in opposition that the court ordered Hammond’s
deposition about the issue and particularly the affidavit Martin and Hammond submitted to defeat
the statute of limitations. During his deposition, where Martin served as Hammond’s counsel,
Hammond lied under oath and stated that he had not even heard about dust mask cases until
“around that timeframe” that he claimed to have taken Mr. Wilson as a client—February of 2020.
See Ex. 4, G. Hammond Dep. Tr. (Mar. 18, 2022) 126: 6–11. This foundational lie was intended
to overcome 3M’s statute of limitations defense for many cases in which their clients met with
Hammond, Martin, or Givens more than one year prior to their complaints being filed. Hammond’s
under-oath statement is unquestionably perjurious, as 3M can prove that Hammond began
conducting case intakes for dust mask cases no later than 2016.
8
23. Hammond’s lies were so palpable that the judge expressly stated, “3M Company
has conclusively shown that Mr. Hammond’s Affidavit was materially false.”
24. Martin perpetuated Hammond’s lies in filings and statements to the court.
Specifically, even after 3M had disproven Hammond’s affidavit at Hammond’s deposition and
had made a detailed presentation outlining the falsity of the affidavit (which the judge agreed with
in his ruling), Martin represented to the court that the affidavit was “good and sound.” In other
words, the falsity of Hammond’s affidavit was unquestionably clear to the court on the record at
that time, yet Martin continued to back the lies.
25. After the court’s ruling on March 9, 2023, as scrutiny began to mount, Martin and
Givens tried to pin the blame for Hammond’s false statements in Wilson, and their collective
scheme, solely on Hammond. On March 24, 2022, Martin acknowledged fraud in the Wilson
case and acknowledged that fraud may have occurred in other cases in which he was counsel.
See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay). 3M is aware that fraud did indeed occur in other cases co-counseled by
Martin, Hammond, and Givens. Seeking to distance themselves, Martin and Givens filed motions
in a Kentucky circuit court seeking to stay hundreds of dust mask cases they are co-counseling
with Hammond, on the basis that these hundreds of claims could be potentially fraudulent. See id.
26. In that motion, Martin and Givens claimed that during a visit to Hammond’s firm
on March 16, 2022, they “discovered documents that neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Givens had
previously seen” that “confirmed that the Hammond affidavit [filed in Wilson] was materially
false.” Id. ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Martin and Givens further claimed that “[p]rior to this discovery,
neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Givens were aware of a paper file for Mr. Wilson” and upon further
inquiry, discovered a room in Hammond’s office containing other hard copy files pertaining to
other clients with dust mask claims, which included individual client intakes and contingency
9
contracts (presumably revealing the date on which the client first contacted and retained Hammond
for purposes of filing a dust mask case). Id. ¶¶ 2–3. Martin and Givens explain that this “created
a concern” for them and it soon became apparent they could not review all the files because there
were so many containing potentially damning evidence. Id. ¶¶ 4–6. As such, Martin stated that
the potentially damning files would be “copied and then forwarded” to Martin in Texas by
Hammond. Id. ¶ 7.
27. Martin and Givens told the Kentucky judge that they expect these files, which they
say will be sent to Martin in Texas, will show that other Kentucky cases filed and prosecuted by
Martin, Givens, and Hammond could be fraudulent:
Because of the disturbing facts discovered in the Wilson case, the
undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel move to stay this litigation. Mr. Martin and
Mr. Givens believe in good faith that material information relating to the
statute of limitations may have been concealed by Hammond in other
cases.
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added).
28. And while Martin claims in his recent motion that he was “unaware” of Hammond’s
fraud, evidence in Martin and Givens’ own files and Martin’s history contradicts that claim. For
example, a coal miner named Matthew Baldridge was a plaintiff in the same complaint that
contained the fraudulent Wilson claim. Hammond had represented Baldridge in a prior workers’
compensation claim, for which Baldridge sat for a deposition on June 20, 2018. During that 2018
deposition—21 months prior to any dust mask claim being filed on his behalf—Baldridge testified
that he had hired Hammond to file a dust mask claim against 3M and believed that Hammond had
already filed that claim in Pike County Circuit Court:
Q. I only have one claim for you and that is the claim for your lungs in connection
with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Have you filed any other claims against
Excel Mining since your last day of Work?
A. No. Well, like I said, just dust mask.
10
Q. So you have filed a dust mask case?
A. Yeah.
Q. Any other case?
A. No.
Q. Where did you file your dust mask case?
A. Here.
Q. In Pike County?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who you filed it against?
A. I just filed on the dust mask.
Q. Was it against 3M?
A. I think so, yeah.
Q. Have you had any type of examinations in connection with that case?
A. No.
Q. Who is your counsel in that case?
A. This place.
Q. Glenn Hammond’s office?
A. Yes.
See Ex. 3, M. Baldridge Dep. Tr. (June 20, 2018), 15:23–16:21.
29. This 2018 deposition transcript was produced in discovery in Baldridge’s case in
or around February 2021—after Martin and Givens filed appearances in Baldridge’s case on May
19, 2020, and October 19, 2020, respectively. Therefore, Martin and Givens had in their
possession all the evidence they would have needed to see that Baldridge’s claim was knowingly
filed outside the limitations period. They did not need any paper files in Hammond’s office to
“discover” the fraudulent claim. Moreover, when Hammond was deposed on March 18, 2022
about the false affidavit he submitted in the Wilson case, counsel for 3M read into the record—
with Martin present—the exact portion of Matthew Baldridge’s testimony copied above, stating
that Baldridge had retained Hammond to file a dust mask suit on his behalf at least as of 2018. See
11
Ex. 4, G. Hammond Dep. Tr. (Mar. 18, 2022) 123:11–125:8. Still, Martin did not alert the court
that Matthew Baldridge’s claim was fraudulent, or at least invalid, much less investigate whether
other claims were filed outside of the statute of limitations. Nor did he correct Hammond’s false
statement that Hammond had not heard about dust mask claims until 2020. Instead, Martin later
caused Baldridge’s claim to be dismissed based on another false statement to the court: that
Matthew Baldridge was “not presently diagnosed” with black lung disease even though Baldrige
had been diagnosed in 2018 (and testified about his diagnosis in June 2020). See January 13, 2022
Motion to Dismiss. In Judge Jack’s words, recognizing that fraud had been discovered, Martin
“succumbed to the urge to torpedo” his client.
30. Martin has told other lies to cover up the scheme. In the same deposition of
Hammond discussed above—with Martin present and engaged as counsel—Hammond testified
about the hard copy paper files he keeps in his office—the same paper files Martin claims in his
motion to stay that he never knew about. Specifically, during the deposition, Hammond stated
that he “discussed with Mr. Martin what records [his] office has” and “provided everything to
[Martin]” prior to the deposition. Id. at 7:15–8:7. Included in the files provided by Hammond to
Martin were hard copy, handwritten notes from “a physical file for Mr. Wilson.” Id. at 86:1–17.
In other words, Martin knew all about the hard copy files in Hammond’s office in March 2022,
despite filing an affidavit on March 24, 2023 saying that he did not.
31. There is also an issue about Martin’s involvement in his client making a false
statement in deposition testimony. On September 29, 2020, Martin represented Johnny Wilson at
a deposition in Wilson’s case against 3M. During that deposition, Martin elicited testimony from
Wilson that Wilson did not learn about dust mask cases—the central fact at issue in the statute of
limitations inquiry—until August 2019. As Martin now admits in his recent affidavit (once again
12
torpedoing his client in the process), that is a materially false statement: Wilson met with attorney
Hammond at least as early as May 2018, well outside of the statute of limitations period (which
would be March 2019 at the latest). That lie has now been exposed, but back in September 2020,
when Martin, Hammond, and Givens were relying on that lie to overcome 3M’s summary
judgment defense, Martin’s client—a coal miner seeking desperately to get 3M to pay for his black
lung injuries—falsely testified, under oath, to further the lie:
Martin Question: When did you realize that the mask might have played a role
in causing your illness?
Wilson Answer: Well, I was driving down the road one day, hear this radio
advertisement talking about --
Martin Question: When was that?
Wilson Answer: I believe it was August '19. […]
Martin Question: Had you ever heard that there was a problem with the mask
before you heard that radio advertisement in August of
2019?
Wilson Answer: No. […]
Martin Question: I take it Mr. Hammond never mentioned anything like that
to you?
Wilson Answer: No. […]
3M Question: Do you know who the lawyers were that were advertising on
the radio?
Wilson Answer: Nope.
3M Question: So when you heard about that, whenever that was -- and you
gave the date -- I'm -- you went and saw Mr. Hammond?
Wilson Answer: Yeah.
3M Question: And then he -- you became his client again at that later date
when you started working toward filing this lawsuit, right?
Wilson Answer: Right.
Wilson Sept 20, 2020, Dep Tr. 77:3-9, 22-25, 78:7-9, 118:21-119:6.
32. Wilson’s perjured testimony answers one critical question and begs several others.
Wilson’s testimony confirms that Wilson told lies under oath that would aid his lawyers’ ability
13
to defeat 3M’s statute of limitations defense. But how did Mr. Wilson know that a lie was needed
to defeat 3M’s defense? How did Wilson come up with such a detailed lie? And how did Wilson
know to pick a specific date that would work to defeat the statute of limitations? Those questions
demand answers. That Martin represented Wilson at, and certainly prepared Wilson for, this
deposition, and asked Wilson specific questions at the deposition designed to elicit the perjured
testimony raises (yet other) serious questions about Martin’s role in this scheme.
This Petition
33. The full nature and scope of Martin’s fraudulent conduct and that of his conspirators
is not currently known. But 3M has reason to believe that evidence of the fraud and the scope of
the underlying scheme to file false claims against 3M are currently maintained by Martin and
Martin Walton in Galveston County, Texas.
34. 3M is not seeking information protected by the attorney client privilege or work
product doctrines, although the evidence to date does and will support the application of the
crime/fraud exception when the time comes and, as noted below, any privilege has been waived
as to certain communications. As discussed in detail below and in the attached subpoena, 3M’s
requests are narrowly tailored and precise. 3M is seeking non-privileged materials such as
information and testimony demonstrating the timing, means, and process of client intakes; the
timing, means, and process of information sharing between Martin, Hammond, and Givens; and
the process that Martin did, or likely did not, undertake prior to accepting/filing/joining/advancing
claims brought by Hammond, Martin, and Givens against 3M in Kentucky. See Gen. Motors Corp.
v. Gayle, 924 S.W.2d 222, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), subsequent mandamus
proceeding, 940 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1997) (attorney notes from conferences with witnesses
containing neutral recitals of facts are not privileged); Leede Oil & Gas, Inc. v. McCorkle, 789
14
S.W.2d 686, 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (“The work product privilege
protects the mental impressions and strategy of the attorney, not facts of the case.”). 3M is also
seeking communications between Hammond, Givens, and Martin about the Wilson statute of
limitations issue, as Martin and Givens have now waived any privilege attached to those
discussions and have admitted that (at the very least) Hammond engaged in fraud.
35. 3M seeks these depositions to obtain further information to investigate its potential
claims against Martin and Martin Walton, as well as Hammond and Givens.
V.
APPLICABLE LAW
36. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.1(b) authorizes the court to order “the taking of
a deposition on oral examination or written questions . . . to investigate a potential claim or suit.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1(b).
37. Rule 202.2 sets out the basic requirements that must be met when a deposition is
being sought to investigate potential claims. The petition must be verified; be filed where the
witness resides; be in the name of the petitioner; state that the petitioner seeks to investigate a
potential claim by or against the petitioner; state the name, address and telephone number of the
person to be deposed, the substance of the testimony that the petitioner expects to elicit, and the
petitioner’s reasons for desiring to obtain the testimony; and request an order authorizing the
petitioner to the deposition of the person named in the petition. TRCP 202.2.
38. Pursuant to Rule 202.4, “a court must order a deposition to be taken if . . . it finds
that:
(1) allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition may prevent a
failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit; or
(2) the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition
to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the
procedure.”
15
Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.4(a) (emphasis added). Here, as further explained below, the likely benefit of
allowing 3M to take the requested depositions in order to investigate potential claims of fraud
outweighs the minimal burden or expense associated with the depositions.
39. Courts routinely order depositions pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.
See, e.g., In re Johnston, No. 06-10-00095-CV, 2010 WL 3930603 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct.
7, 2010, no pet.) (determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the
benefits to the petitioner of investigating unknown potential parties outweighed the burden of a
deposition); In re Emergency Consultants, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2007, no pet.) (denying mandamus relief in a case where the trial court determined, inter alia, that
the benefit of allowing the petitioner to investigate potential claims outweighed the burden of
taking four pre-suit depositions). The sole and entirely non-unique burden to the expected
deponents of having to sit for a deposition and produce documents already in their possession
cannot outweigh the benefit of determining whether fraudulent conduct by Martin, an officer of
the court, or others occurred.
VIII.
REQUEST FOR ORAL DEPOSITIONS AND ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENA DECES TECUM REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
40. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 202 and 205, 3M seeks an order from
the Court authorizing it to take the oral deposition of a corporate representative of Martin Walton
with the most knowledge of (i) the operations of the firm, (ii) dust mask claims filed by attorneys
of the firm along with Hammond and Givens against 3M, (iii) any relationship with Hammond,
Givens, or their respective firms, (iv) the files relating to dust mask claims previously transferred
by Hammond and/or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices to Martin and Martin Walton,
(v) copies of the paper files of dust mask clients allegedly discovered in Hammond’s office on
16
March 16, 2023, to be transferred to Martin Walton by Hammond or Glenn Martin Hammond Law
Offices; and (vi) communications related to the statute of limitations in the Wilson matter.
41. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 202 and 205, 3M also seeks an order
from the Court authorizing it to take the oral deposition of Mike Martin pertaining to: (i) the
general practices of, and any software or other resources used by, Martin Walton relating to case
management, file management, record collection, data storage and retention, split-fee or other
arrangements with third-party attorneys or law firms, and financial accounting related to dust mask
claims filed by Martin, or for which Martin has filed appearances, in which Givens and Hammond
are or were co-counsel, against 3M in in Kentucky; (ii) Martin’s knowledge of the processes and
systems employed by Hammond and Givens in soliciting, intaking, vetting, and preparing claims;
(iii) any and all bar disciplinary actions alleged against Martin, Hammond, or Givens and any legal
malpractice allegations or claims brought against Martin, Hammond, or Givens; (iv) any
relationship between Martin or Martin Walton on the one hand, and Glenn Martin Hammond,
Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Johnny Givens, and/or Givens Law Firm, PLLC on the other;
(v) the documents Martin’s counsel was referencing in his March 22, 2023 statement quoted in
Law360, (vi) the electronic files relating to dust mask claims previously transferred by Hammond
and/or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices to Martin and Martin Walton, (vii) the paper files of
dust mask clients allegedly discovered in Hammond’s office on March 16, 2023, to be transferred
to Martin Walton by Hammond or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices, and
(viii) communications between Martin, Hammond, and Givens related to the statute of limitations
in the Wilson matter.
17
42. 3M also seeks an order authorizing 3M to serve Martin and Martin Walton each
with a subpoena duces tecum, attached below as Exhibits A and B, compelling the production of
relevant records readily available to them.
X.
PRAYER
For these reasons, 3M asks this Court to set this Petition for a hearing and, following that
hearing, issue an order requiring Martin and Martin Walton to appear for depositions on oral
examination by 3M and to produce documents provided for by way of subpoenas duces tecum to
be issued pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Winston & Strawn LLP
/s/Denise Scofield
Denise Scofield
Texas Bar No. 00784934
dscofield@winston.com
Brandon Duke
Texas Bar No. 240994476
bduke@winston.com
800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 651-2600
Steve Grimes (pro hac application to be filed)
sgrimes@winston.com
Whitney Adams (pro hac application to be filed)
wiadams@winston.com
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
(312) 558-5600
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
3M COMPANY
18
Exhibit A – Documents to be Produced by Michael B. Martin
I. Definitions
“Dust Mask Client(s)” refers to any individual that has sought representation from You,
Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or
Givens Law PLLC for the purpose of filing a dust mask (or respirator) claim against 3M in
Kentucky; any such individual on whose behalf a claim and Your name appears on the filed
complaint or You filed an appearance in that case after the complaint was filed.
“You” and “Your” refer to Michael B. Martin and/or Martin Walton.
II. Documents to be Produced
Produce the following documents, with privileged information redacted as appropriate but
non-privileged information such as dates, signatures, and client details not redacted, including non-
privileged but otherwise confidential information, subject to entry of a protective order providing
appropriate protections from disclosure of such information:
1. Any and all retention agreements, engagement letters, contracts for attorney fees, or other
agreements between a Dust Mask Client and You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn
Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC.
2. Any and all any correspondence, mail, emails, texts, calendar entries, phone records, or
electronic invitations or other records of any videoconference between a Dust Mask Client
and You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin
Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC, relating to a Dust Mask Client’s initial meeting with
You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin
Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC regarding a Dust Mask Claim.
3. Any and all emails or other records relating to the transfer of files maintained by Glenn
Martin Hammond Law Office relating to any Dust Mask Client to You, Johnny Givens,
the Martin Walton Law Firm and/or Givens Law Firm PLLC, including but not limited to
any transfer via Dropbox.
4. Any and all client intake files or forms for Dust Mask Clients maintained by You and/or
sent to You by Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, including but not limited to any intake
form or questionnaire completed, or written notes taken, during the intake, and any consent
to release forms, requests for medical records, authorization of release forms, or other
forms completed for the purpose of obtaining records on the client’s behalf.
5. Any and all entries into an electronic or hard copy database or log relating to any Dust
Mask Client’s intake by (or first contact with) Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office.
6. Any and all folder/document creation dates for any Dust Mask Client file stored on a
network, server, or local computer to which You have access, or which You use, maintain,
control or own.
7. Any and all logs or other records of activity in Dust Mask Client’s case in any calendar,
word document, spreadsheet, or other electronic or paper format maintained You.
8. Records sufficient to show dates of travel by You to Kentucky for purposes relating to the
investigation, filing or prosecution of claims filed on behalf of Dust Mask Clients.
9. Any and all contracts, agreements, or other documents reflecting a split-fee or similar
arrangement between You and Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond
Law Office, and/or Givens Law PLLC relating to representation of Dust Mask Clients in
claims filed against 3M.
10. Any and all records relating to bar disciplinary actions alleged against You, Glenn
Hammond, or Johnny Givens.
11. Any and all records relating to any legal malpractices allegations or claims brought against
You, Glenn Hammond, or Johnny Givens.
12. Any and all documents that You discovered on or around March 17, 2023 that had not been
disclosed to You by Glenn Hammond, as described in a statement by Your counsel reported
on March 22, 2023 by Law 360 that “on March 17, [You] went to Kentucky to review files
at the Hammond office, only to discover that some documents were never disclosed to”
You.
13. The referral agreement between You or Martin Walton and Hammond and/or Glenn Matin
Hammond Law Office regarding dust mask claims dated May 5, 2020, as described in the
Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1.
14. Any and all communications between You, Hammond, and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond
Law Offices relating to entering into a referral agreement and dust mask cases generally,
prior to entering into the referral agreement dated May 5, 2020, as described in the
Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1.
15. Any and all files relating to the dust mask claims transferred electronically to You by
Hammond and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices on or around May 5, 2020,
upon entering into a referral agreement with Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices, as
described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to
Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1.
16. Any and all client files sent electronically to You and/or Martin Walton by Hammond
and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices after entering into the referral agreement,
as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to
Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 3.
17. The agreement, or any documents evidencing an agreement, entered into between You
and/or Martin Walton on the one hand, and Johnny Givens and/or Givens Law Firm PLLC,
whereby Givens began serving Your lead co-counsel on the dust mask claims as of
September 20, 2023, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023.
See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 4.
18. Any and all communications by which You learned of the filling of other dust mask cases
by Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices after the filing of the Randy Adams, et al. case,
as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to
Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 5.
19. Any and all files sent electronically to You and/or Martin Walton by Hammond and/or the
Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office after the filing of additional cases by the Glenn Martin
Hammond Law Office following the filing of the Randy Adams, et al. case, including but
not limited to intake sheets and other client documents, as described in the Affidavit of
Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 5.
20. Any and all communications, documents or other records upon which You relied in
forming the “belief and understanding that the Hammond law firm turned over all client
information related to the client’s dust mask case when the electronic files were sent to”
Martin Walton, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See
Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 6.
21. Any and all documents or records relating to Your “standard operating procedure” for
ordering records on behalf of clients, including clients with dust mask claims, as described
in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶
7.
22. Any and all communications, documents or other records relating to the efforts by Your
firm “to order records for Johnny Wilson as per [Your] standard operating procedure,” as
described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay),
Ex. 1, ¶ 7.
23. Any and all communications between You and Hammond, the Glenn Matin Hammond
Law Offices, and/or Bernice Wilson relating to the medical authorization dated January 3,
2019, in the records from Dr. Ammisetty, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin
dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 7.
24. Records sufficient to show dates of travel by You to Kentucky on or around March 16,
2023, for purposes of “discuss[ing] a response to the order of March 9, 2023,” as
des
Preview
Filed: 4/25/2023 11:20 AM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 74986839 By: Lisa Kelly 4/25/2023 11:39 AM CAUSE NO. 23-CV-0488 3M COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Petitioner, § § v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHAEL B. MARTIN and § MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, § § Respondents. 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § PETITIONER’S AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice that Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Authorization to Conduct Rule 202 Pre-Suit Depositions (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is set for oral hearing on June 1, 2023, at 2:00p.m., before the 10th Judicial District Court of Galveston, Texas. Dated: April 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted, Winston & Strawn LLP /s/Denise Scofield Denise Scofield Texas Bar No. 00784934 dscofield@winston.com Brandon W. Duke Texas Bar No. 240994476 bduke@winston.com 800 Capitol, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 Steve Grimes (pro hac application pending) sgrimes@winston.com Whitney Adams (pro hac application pending) wiadams@winston.com Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703 (312) 558-5600 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 3M COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 25, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all known parties and counsel of record by electronic service in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Diane F. Burgess David L. Miller MILLER, SCAMARDI & CARRABBA, PC 6525 Washington Avenue Houston, Texas 77007 Email: dburgess@msc-lawyer.com Email: dmiller@msc-lawyer.com ATTORNERYS FOR RESPONDENTS /s/ Denise Scofield 2 Filed: 3/31/2023 1:39 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 74219819 By: Lisa Kelly 3/31/2023 3:27 PM CAUSE NO. 23-CV-0488 3M COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Petitioner, § § v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHAEL B. MARTIN and § MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, § § Respondents. Galveston County – 10th District Court § SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RULE 202 PRE-SUIT DEPOSITIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Petitioner 3M Company (“3M”) files this Verified Petition for Authorization to Conduct Rule 202 Pre-Suit Depositions (the “Petition”) for the purpose of investigating a potential claim or suit. Specifically, 3M asks the Court for permission to take depositions of Respondents Michael B. Martin (“Martin”) and a corporate representative of Martin Walton Law Firm (“Martin Walton”) and to serve Martin and Martin Walton with a deposition notice requiring the production of documents via subpoena duces tecum. I. PARTIES 1. 3M is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Minnesota. 2. Michael B. Martin is an individual who resides and maintains a law office in Galveston County, Texas. He may be served with process at 1308 Greenbriar Dr., Friendswood, Texas 77546. 3. Martin Walton is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Texas, registered to do business in Texas, and with its principal place of business located in Galveston County, Texas. Martin Walton may be served with process at 699 S. Friendswood Drive, Suite 107 Houston, Texas, in Galveston County, Texas. II. JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because, among other things: (1) the conduct that forms the basis of the potential claims that 3M needs to investigate relates to conduct and business activities that occurred in Galveston County, Texas; (2) the potential claims that 3M may have against Martin and Martin Walton are for an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; (3) Martin resides in Galveston County; and (4) Martin Walton’s principal office is located in Galveston County, Texas. III. VENUE 5. Venue is proper in Galveston County pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.2 because Martin resides in Galveston County, Texas, and Martin Walton’s principal office is in Galveston County, Texas. IV. GROUNDS FOR PETITION 6. Martin is a licensed attorney who has practiced in Texas for over 35 years and is a member of Martin Walton. He claims to have represented hundreds of plaintiffs suffering from occupational lung diseases, such as silicosis and coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, or “black lung,” 2 and advertises that he specializes in respirator (or dust mask) product liability claims. 1 Glenn Hammond is an attorney based in Pikeville, Kentucky, and has his own firm, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office. Hammond has no history of prosecuting respirator product liability cases. Rather, he focuses on workers’ compensation, social security disability, personal injury and other claims. Johnny Givens is an attorney based in Mississippi who previously worked at a firm practicing product liability litigation, and as of July 2019, opened his own firm to focus specifically on respirator claims—in particular, dust mask liability claims against 3M. Mike Martin 7. Martin has a documented history of pursuing fraudulent cases against 3M and— once caught—leaving his unwitting clients to pick up the pieces, looking out only for himself. In 2002, Martin was hired to file silicosis claims against 3M on behalf of a client, Clark Kirkland, who had been diagnosed with silicosis injuries the year prior. On the eve of the statute f limitations expiring, Martin overnighted a complaint for filing in Georgia state court—despite not being licensed to practice in Georgia or seeking the court’s permission to file. After Martin missed the statute of limitations, the Georgia court directed Martin to dismiss the suit, which he did a few days later. Martin then concealed the Georgia dismissal from his client and waited nine months, long after the statute of limitations had expired, to re-file the case. Martin’s client, Kirkland, alleged that Martin then suggested that Kirkland lie about when he discovered his injury which prompted Kirkland to report Martin’s misconduct to U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of the Southern District of Texas. 1 The 3M products at issue in these actions are government certified and approved respirators; however, for the purposes of this application they will be referred to as “dust masks,” the term widely used by coal miner plaintiffs and the lawyers who represent them. 3 8. Martin then took steps to conceal his misconduct—first seeking to withdraw from the case (which Judge Jack denied), and second, moving to dismiss Kirkland’s claim (without his client’s knowledge or consent), claiming that Kirkland in fact had not worn a respirator when exposed to silica. See Ex. 2, In re Silica Prod. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 642–43 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Judge Jack declined to rule on the motion to dismiss and ordered Martin to appear for a court-monitored deposition regarding Kirkland’s claim against 3M and his allegations against Martin. Id. at 643. As Judge Jack wrote in her opinion chastising Martin for putting his own interests over those of his client, during the deposition, Martin “succumbed to the urge to torpedo his client’s case” by attempting “to show Mr. Kirkland’s suit would have been time-barred prior to Mr. Martin’s engagement.” Id. at 644. Kirkland then successfully sued Martin for legal malpractice and obtained $150,000 in damages. 2 9. In another claim against 3M a few years later, U.S. District Judge Marian Payson of the Western District of New York chastised Martin for his cavalier treatment of the court’s orders. Judge Payson sanctioned Martin and found that attorneys’ fees were warranted for Martin’s “obvious disregard of his obligations.” 3 The Current Scheme 10. As early as 2016, attorney Glenn Hammond began to solicit current and former coal workers in and around Pikeville, Kentucky, as potential clients to bring dust mask claims against 3M. Hammond first solicited his prior clientele—coal workers who had filed (successfully or unsuccessfully) workers’ compensation or social security claims alleging a black lung diagnosis. Many of those compensation claims were filed decades ago. The solicitation then expanded to 2 See Kirkland v. Martin, No. 4:10-CV-2865, 2012 WL 3930318, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2012). 3 See Coene v. 3M Co., No. 10-CV-6546G, 2015 WL 5513323, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015). 4 reach other individuals in Kentucky who had previously worked in a mine. By early 2020, long after many of those claims had expired under Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations, Martin and (and then later Givens) joined Hammond in suing 3M in Kentucky courts. 11. Martin, Hammond, and Givens did not vet the claims before filing them against 3M. Instead, Hammond, Martin, and Givens relied on employees who were not licensed to practice law and with no experience in respirator liability claims to conduct “case intakes.” In some instances, Hammond encouraged people he knew to sign up for a dust mask claim and coached them prior to coming to his office for an intake to lie about their mask usage, for example, instructing them to say they always used a 3M mask and wore a mask 100% of the time they worked in the mine. In other instances, Hammond joined an ongoing intake and encouraged the individual to tell the same lie—reassuring them that no one could prove they never wore a mask decades ago. 12. During intake, clients signed a contract for attorney fees providing that Hammond would receive up to 40% of any award obtained from 3M on that individual’s behalf. Hammond, Martin, and Givens agreed separately to split the award amongst themselves. 13. Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office sent Martin, at his office in Texas, electronic copies of case files for each Hammond, Martin, Givens client. See Ex. 1 (Motion to Stay Hammond Law Offices Dust Mask Cases (Mar. 23, 2023) (“Mot. to Stay”)), ¶ 1. 14. Between March 2020 and January 2023, Martin, Hammond, and Givens collectively filed and/or prosecuted 19 complaints in Kentucky asserting more than 850 claims against 3M on behalf of coal workers or their estates. Each alleged that the claimants had suffered from black lung, used a 3M mask to protect themselves from exposure to coal dust while working 5 in coal mines, and did not know of their injury or that it was allegedly caused by the supposedly defective 3M mask more than one year before filing their claim. 15. Martin, Hammond, and Givens filed and/or prosecuted claims on behalf of virtually every coal worker that went through the intake process at Hammond’s firm—regardless of whether they had a meritorious, or even colorable, claim. The attorneys filed and prosecuted claims on behalf of clients whom they affirmatively knew—based on the intake process and/or the individual’s records from a prior claim—had never been diagnosed with black lung, never wore a mask while working in the mine, and/or did not use a mask made by 3M. They also filed claims on behalf of coal workers who had signed up as dust mask clients years earlier and whose claims were far outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations when filed. Martin, Hammond, and Givens also filed and prosecuted claims on behalf of deceased coal workers whom they knew had died (and who had an administrator assigned to their estate more than two years before a complaint was filed), such that the applicable statute of limitations on their claim had unquestionably expired. 16. In January 2023, Martin admitted in a written communication that he knew many of the claims brought by Hammond, Givens, and Martin against 3M were “frivolous.” Until Hammond’s false affidavit (drafted in large part by Martin) was found to have been materially false by a Kentucky judge, as described further below, Martin did nothing to try to address this fact—indeed, he permitted new cases to be filed under his name by Hammond. 17. Martin, Hammond, and Givens prosecuted fraudulent claims against 3M as part of an ongoing scheme to drive up 3M’s litigation costs and force larger settlements. These attorneys knew that by increasing the inventory of cases filed against 3M, they were increasing the amount of money 3M would have to spend defending the cases and the risk exposure 3M would assign to the case inventory—thereby increasing the pressure on 3M to settle cases. 6 18. The motive for bringing and prosecuting these fraudulent claims was threefold: (1) if the fraud went undetected, Martin, Givens, and Hammond stood to recoup a percentage of settlements or court awards for the fraudulent cases; (2) they could use the cases as “bargaining chips” in settlement negotiations with 3M; and (3) even if the fraudulent claims were uncovered in the future, they would have already served the purpose of driving up settlement values. 19. To conceal the fraudulent claims and the underlying scheme, Martin, Hammond, and Givens prepared and served interrogatory responses on behalf of certain clients that contained false statements about the client’s mask usage and the type of mask used. 3M is aware that Givens instructed at least one client to lie in a deposition about his claims. And, in numerous cases, when a client’s deposition drew near, Martin, Hammond, and Givens canceled the deposition days before it was scheduled then dismissed the case and lied to some of their clients about the reason for dismissing the case—. To date, Martin, Hammond, and Givens have dismissed 16 of the 53 claims from their initial March 2020 complaint alone. Martin, Hammond, and Givens knew at the time that at least several of those dismissed claims (initially filed by Hammond and later joined by Martin and Givens) were fraudulent. 20. On February 17, 2023, Martin, Hammond, and Givens moved to dismiss without prejudice 44 additional claims (out of 470 total clams) from the second, third, and fourth complaints that they had filed in early 2021. In those motions (filed in multiple courts), Martin, Hammond, and Givens admitted that none of the 44 claimants as to which their motions were filed had been diagnosed with black lung at the time their claim was filed—despite representing in the complaints that each suffered from this disease, showing that neither Martin, Hammond, nor Givens had engaged in pre-suit investigation required under Kentucky law and the rules of professional responsibility. When 3M opposed and requested a hearing about the request to enter 7 dismissals without prejudice, Martin, Hammond, and Givens reversed course, sought to withdraw their motions to dismiss to avoid judicial scrutiny into their knowledge that the claims were false, and chose to continue prosecuting claims they had just weeks earlier admitted were invalid in judicial filings. 21. On March 9, 2023, a judge presiding over one of the dust mask claims filed by Martin, Hammond, and Givens in Pike County, Kentucky, granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of 3M, dismissing one of their earlier-filed fraudulent claims—Wilson v. 3M Company, No. 22-CI-812 (Pike Cir. Ct.) (“Wilson”)—on statute of limitations grounds. The statute of limitations in Kentucky is one year, and for a latent injury, the statute runs when the plaintiff “knew or should have known” of his injury and that the defendant’s conduct “may” have caused it. In opposing summary judgment, Hammond, Martin, and Givens submitted an affidavit from Wilson, as well as one drafted by Hammond and Martin, and signed by Hammond. 22. The judge initially denied the motion but 3M raised sufficient suspicions as to the veracity of Hammond’s and his client’s affidavits in opposition that the court ordered Hammond’s deposition about the issue and particularly the affidavit Martin and Hammond submitted to defeat the statute of limitations. During his deposition, where Martin served as Hammond’s counsel, Hammond lied under oath and stated that he had not even heard about dust mask cases until “around that timeframe” that he claimed to have taken Mr. Wilson as a client—February of 2020. See Ex. 4, G. Hammond Dep. Tr. (Mar. 18, 2022) 126: 6–11. This foundational lie was intended to overcome 3M’s statute of limitations defense for many cases in which their clients met with Hammond, Martin, or Givens more than one year prior to their complaints being filed. Hammond’s under-oath statement is unquestionably perjurious, as 3M can prove that Hammond began conducting case intakes for dust mask cases no later than 2016. 8 23. Hammond’s lies were so palpable that the judge expressly stated, “3M Company has conclusively shown that Mr. Hammond’s Affidavit was materially false.” 24. Martin perpetuated Hammond’s lies in filings and statements to the court. Specifically, even after 3M had disproven Hammond’s affidavit at Hammond’s deposition and had made a detailed presentation outlining the falsity of the affidavit (which the judge agreed with in his ruling), Martin represented to the court that the affidavit was “good and sound.” In other words, the falsity of Hammond’s affidavit was unquestionably clear to the court on the record at that time, yet Martin continued to back the lies. 25. After the court’s ruling on March 9, 2023, as scrutiny began to mount, Martin and Givens tried to pin the blame for Hammond’s false statements in Wilson, and their collective scheme, solely on Hammond. On March 24, 2022, Martin acknowledged fraud in the Wilson case and acknowledged that fraud may have occurred in other cases in which he was counsel. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay). 3M is aware that fraud did indeed occur in other cases co-counseled by Martin, Hammond, and Givens. Seeking to distance themselves, Martin and Givens filed motions in a Kentucky circuit court seeking to stay hundreds of dust mask cases they are co-counseling with Hammond, on the basis that these hundreds of claims could be potentially fraudulent. See id. 26. In that motion, Martin and Givens claimed that during a visit to Hammond’s firm on March 16, 2022, they “discovered documents that neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Givens had previously seen” that “confirmed that the Hammond affidavit [filed in Wilson] was materially false.” Id. ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Martin and Givens further claimed that “[p]rior to this discovery, neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Givens were aware of a paper file for Mr. Wilson” and upon further inquiry, discovered a room in Hammond’s office containing other hard copy files pertaining to other clients with dust mask claims, which included individual client intakes and contingency 9 contracts (presumably revealing the date on which the client first contacted and retained Hammond for purposes of filing a dust mask case). Id. ¶¶ 2–3. Martin and Givens explain that this “created a concern” for them and it soon became apparent they could not review all the files because there were so many containing potentially damning evidence. Id. ¶¶ 4–6. As such, Martin stated that the potentially damning files would be “copied and then forwarded” to Martin in Texas by Hammond. Id. ¶ 7. 27. Martin and Givens told the Kentucky judge that they expect these files, which they say will be sent to Martin in Texas, will show that other Kentucky cases filed and prosecuted by Martin, Givens, and Hammond could be fraudulent: Because of the disturbing facts discovered in the Wilson case, the undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel move to stay this litigation. Mr. Martin and Mr. Givens believe in good faith that material information relating to the statute of limitations may have been concealed by Hammond in other cases. Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added). 28. And while Martin claims in his recent motion that he was “unaware” of Hammond’s fraud, evidence in Martin and Givens’ own files and Martin’s history contradicts that claim. For example, a coal miner named Matthew Baldridge was a plaintiff in the same complaint that contained the fraudulent Wilson claim. Hammond had represented Baldridge in a prior workers’ compensation claim, for which Baldridge sat for a deposition on June 20, 2018. During that 2018 deposition—21 months prior to any dust mask claim being filed on his behalf—Baldridge testified that he had hired Hammond to file a dust mask claim against 3M and believed that Hammond had already filed that claim in Pike County Circuit Court: Q. I only have one claim for you and that is the claim for your lungs in connection with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Have you filed any other claims against Excel Mining since your last day of Work? A. No. Well, like I said, just dust mask. 10 Q. So you have filed a dust mask case? A. Yeah. Q. Any other case? A. No. Q. Where did you file your dust mask case? A. Here. Q. In Pike County? A. Yes. Q. Do you know who you filed it against? A. I just filed on the dust mask. Q. Was it against 3M? A. I think so, yeah. Q. Have you had any type of examinations in connection with that case? A. No. Q. Who is your counsel in that case? A. This place. Q. Glenn Hammond’s office? A. Yes. See Ex. 3, M. Baldridge Dep. Tr. (June 20, 2018), 15:23–16:21. 29. This 2018 deposition transcript was produced in discovery in Baldridge’s case in or around February 2021—after Martin and Givens filed appearances in Baldridge’s case on May 19, 2020, and October 19, 2020, respectively. Therefore, Martin and Givens had in their possession all the evidence they would have needed to see that Baldridge’s claim was knowingly filed outside the limitations period. They did not need any paper files in Hammond’s office to “discover” the fraudulent claim. Moreover, when Hammond was deposed on March 18, 2022 about the false affidavit he submitted in the Wilson case, counsel for 3M read into the record— with Martin present—the exact portion of Matthew Baldridge’s testimony copied above, stating that Baldridge had retained Hammond to file a dust mask suit on his behalf at least as of 2018. See 11 Ex. 4, G. Hammond Dep. Tr. (Mar. 18, 2022) 123:11–125:8. Still, Martin did not alert the court that Matthew Baldridge’s claim was fraudulent, or at least invalid, much less investigate whether other claims were filed outside of the statute of limitations. Nor did he correct Hammond’s false statement that Hammond had not heard about dust mask claims until 2020. Instead, Martin later caused Baldridge’s claim to be dismissed based on another false statement to the court: that Matthew Baldridge was “not presently diagnosed” with black lung disease even though Baldrige had been diagnosed in 2018 (and testified about his diagnosis in June 2020). See January 13, 2022 Motion to Dismiss. In Judge Jack’s words, recognizing that fraud had been discovered, Martin “succumbed to the urge to torpedo” his client. 30. Martin has told other lies to cover up the scheme. In the same deposition of Hammond discussed above—with Martin present and engaged as counsel—Hammond testified about the hard copy paper files he keeps in his office—the same paper files Martin claims in his motion to stay that he never knew about. Specifically, during the deposition, Hammond stated that he “discussed with Mr. Martin what records [his] office has” and “provided everything to [Martin]” prior to the deposition. Id. at 7:15–8:7. Included in the files provided by Hammond to Martin were hard copy, handwritten notes from “a physical file for Mr. Wilson.” Id. at 86:1–17. In other words, Martin knew all about the hard copy files in Hammond’s office in March 2022, despite filing an affidavit on March 24, 2023 saying that he did not. 31. There is also an issue about Martin’s involvement in his client making a false statement in deposition testimony. On September 29, 2020, Martin represented Johnny Wilson at a deposition in Wilson’s case against 3M. During that deposition, Martin elicited testimony from Wilson that Wilson did not learn about dust mask cases—the central fact at issue in the statute of limitations inquiry—until August 2019. As Martin now admits in his recent affidavit (once again 12 torpedoing his client in the process), that is a materially false statement: Wilson met with attorney Hammond at least as early as May 2018, well outside of the statute of limitations period (which would be March 2019 at the latest). That lie has now been exposed, but back in September 2020, when Martin, Hammond, and Givens were relying on that lie to overcome 3M’s summary judgment defense, Martin’s client—a coal miner seeking desperately to get 3M to pay for his black lung injuries—falsely testified, under oath, to further the lie: Martin Question: When did you realize that the mask might have played a role in causing your illness? Wilson Answer: Well, I was driving down the road one day, hear this radio advertisement talking about -- Martin Question: When was that? Wilson Answer: I believe it was August '19. […] Martin Question: Had you ever heard that there was a problem with the mask before you heard that radio advertisement in August of 2019? Wilson Answer: No. […] Martin Question: I take it Mr. Hammond never mentioned anything like that to you? Wilson Answer: No. […] 3M Question: Do you know who the lawyers were that were advertising on the radio? Wilson Answer: Nope. 3M Question: So when you heard about that, whenever that was -- and you gave the date -- I'm -- you went and saw Mr. Hammond? Wilson Answer: Yeah. 3M Question: And then he -- you became his client again at that later date when you started working toward filing this lawsuit, right? Wilson Answer: Right. Wilson Sept 20, 2020, Dep Tr. 77:3-9, 22-25, 78:7-9, 118:21-119:6. 32. Wilson’s perjured testimony answers one critical question and begs several others. Wilson’s testimony confirms that Wilson told lies under oath that would aid his lawyers’ ability 13 to defeat 3M’s statute of limitations defense. But how did Mr. Wilson know that a lie was needed to defeat 3M’s defense? How did Wilson come up with such a detailed lie? And how did Wilson know to pick a specific date that would work to defeat the statute of limitations? Those questions demand answers. That Martin represented Wilson at, and certainly prepared Wilson for, this deposition, and asked Wilson specific questions at the deposition designed to elicit the perjured testimony raises (yet other) serious questions about Martin’s role in this scheme. This Petition 33. The full nature and scope of Martin’s fraudulent conduct and that of his conspirators is not currently known. But 3M has reason to believe that evidence of the fraud and the scope of the underlying scheme to file false claims against 3M are currently maintained by Martin and Martin Walton in Galveston County, Texas. 34. 3M is not seeking information protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrines, although the evidence to date does and will support the application of the crime/fraud exception when the time comes and, as noted below, any privilege has been waived as to certain communications. As discussed in detail below and in the attached subpoena, 3M’s requests are narrowly tailored and precise. 3M is seeking non-privileged materials such as information and testimony demonstrating the timing, means, and process of client intakes; the timing, means, and process of information sharing between Martin, Hammond, and Givens; and the process that Martin did, or likely did not, undertake prior to accepting/filing/joining/advancing claims brought by Hammond, Martin, and Givens against 3M in Kentucky. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 924 S.W.2d 222, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), subsequent mandamus proceeding, 940 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1997) (attorney notes from conferences with witnesses containing neutral recitals of facts are not privileged); Leede Oil & Gas, Inc. v. McCorkle, 789 14 S.W.2d 686, 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (“The work product privilege protects the mental impressions and strategy of the attorney, not facts of the case.”). 3M is also seeking communications between Hammond, Givens, and Martin about the Wilson statute of limitations issue, as Martin and Givens have now waived any privilege attached to those discussions and have admitted that (at the very least) Hammond engaged in fraud. 35. 3M seeks these depositions to obtain further information to investigate its potential claims against Martin and Martin Walton, as well as Hammond and Givens. V. APPLICABLE LAW 36. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.1(b) authorizes the court to order “the taking of a deposition on oral examination or written questions . . . to investigate a potential claim or suit.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1(b). 37. Rule 202.2 sets out the basic requirements that must be met when a deposition is being sought to investigate potential claims. The petition must be verified; be filed where the witness resides; be in the name of the petitioner; state that the petitioner seeks to investigate a potential claim by or against the petitioner; state the name, address and telephone number of the person to be deposed, the substance of the testimony that the petitioner expects to elicit, and the petitioner’s reasons for desiring to obtain the testimony; and request an order authorizing the petitioner to the deposition of the person named in the petition. TRCP 202.2. 38. Pursuant to Rule 202.4, “a court must order a deposition to be taken if . . . it finds that: (1) allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit; or (2) the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure.” 15 Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.4(a) (emphasis added). Here, as further explained below, the likely benefit of allowing 3M to take the requested depositions in order to investigate potential claims of fraud outweighs the minimal burden or expense associated with the depositions. 39. Courts routinely order depositions pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See, e.g., In re Johnston, No. 06-10-00095-CV, 2010 WL 3930603 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 7, 2010, no pet.) (determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the benefits to the petitioner of investigating unknown potential parties outweighed the burden of a deposition); In re Emergency Consultants, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (denying mandamus relief in a case where the trial court determined, inter alia, that the benefit of allowing the petitioner to investigate potential claims outweighed the burden of taking four pre-suit depositions). The sole and entirely non-unique burden to the expected deponents of having to sit for a deposition and produce documents already in their possession cannot outweigh the benefit of determining whether fraudulent conduct by Martin, an officer of the court, or others occurred. VIII. REQUEST FOR ORAL DEPOSITIONS AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DECES TECUM REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 40. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 202 and 205, 3M seeks an order from the Court authorizing it to take the oral deposition of a corporate representative of Martin Walton with the most knowledge of (i) the operations of the firm, (ii) dust mask claims filed by attorneys of the firm along with Hammond and Givens against 3M, (iii) any relationship with Hammond, Givens, or their respective firms, (iv) the files relating to dust mask claims previously transferred by Hammond and/or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices to Martin and Martin Walton, (v) copies of the paper files of dust mask clients allegedly discovered in Hammond’s office on 16 March 16, 2023, to be transferred to Martin Walton by Hammond or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices; and (vi) communications related to the statute of limitations in the Wilson matter. 41. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 202 and 205, 3M also seeks an order from the Court authorizing it to take the oral deposition of Mike Martin pertaining to: (i) the general practices of, and any software or other resources used by, Martin Walton relating to case management, file management, record collection, data storage and retention, split-fee or other arrangements with third-party attorneys or law firms, and financial accounting related to dust mask claims filed by Martin, or for which Martin has filed appearances, in which Givens and Hammond are or were co-counsel, against 3M in in Kentucky; (ii) Martin’s knowledge of the processes and systems employed by Hammond and Givens in soliciting, intaking, vetting, and preparing claims; (iii) any and all bar disciplinary actions alleged against Martin, Hammond, or Givens and any legal malpractice allegations or claims brought against Martin, Hammond, or Givens; (iv) any relationship between Martin or Martin Walton on the one hand, and Glenn Martin Hammond, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Johnny Givens, and/or Givens Law Firm, PLLC on the other; (v) the documents Martin’s counsel was referencing in his March 22, 2023 statement quoted in Law360, (vi) the electronic files relating to dust mask claims previously transferred by Hammond and/or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices to Martin and Martin Walton, (vii) the paper files of dust mask clients allegedly discovered in Hammond’s office on March 16, 2023, to be transferred to Martin Walton by Hammond or Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices, and (viii) communications between Martin, Hammond, and Givens related to the statute of limitations in the Wilson matter. 17 42. 3M also seeks an order authorizing 3M to serve Martin and Martin Walton each with a subpoena duces tecum, attached below as Exhibits A and B, compelling the production of relevant records readily available to them. X. PRAYER For these reasons, 3M asks this Court to set this Petition for a hearing and, following that hearing, issue an order requiring Martin and Martin Walton to appear for depositions on oral examination by 3M and to produce documents provided for by way of subpoenas duces tecum to be issued pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, Winston & Strawn LLP /s/Denise Scofield Denise Scofield Texas Bar No. 00784934 dscofield@winston.com Brandon Duke Texas Bar No. 240994476 bduke@winston.com 800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 651-2600 Steve Grimes (pro hac application to be filed) sgrimes@winston.com Whitney Adams (pro hac application to be filed) wiadams@winston.com Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703 (312) 558-5600 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 3M COMPANY 18 Exhibit A – Documents to be Produced by Michael B. Martin I. Definitions “Dust Mask Client(s)” refers to any individual that has sought representation from You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC for the purpose of filing a dust mask (or respirator) claim against 3M in Kentucky; any such individual on whose behalf a claim and Your name appears on the filed complaint or You filed an appearance in that case after the complaint was filed. “You” and “Your” refer to Michael B. Martin and/or Martin Walton. II. Documents to be Produced Produce the following documents, with privileged information redacted as appropriate but non-privileged information such as dates, signatures, and client details not redacted, including non- privileged but otherwise confidential information, subject to entry of a protective order providing appropriate protections from disclosure of such information: 1. Any and all retention agreements, engagement letters, contracts for attorney fees, or other agreements between a Dust Mask Client and You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC. 2. Any and all any correspondence, mail, emails, texts, calendar entries, phone records, or electronic invitations or other records of any videoconference between a Dust Mask Client and You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC, relating to a Dust Mask Client’s initial meeting with You, Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, Martin Walton, and/or Givens Law PLLC regarding a Dust Mask Claim. 3. Any and all emails or other records relating to the transfer of files maintained by Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office relating to any Dust Mask Client to You, Johnny Givens, the Martin Walton Law Firm and/or Givens Law Firm PLLC, including but not limited to any transfer via Dropbox. 4. Any and all client intake files or forms for Dust Mask Clients maintained by You and/or sent to You by Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, including but not limited to any intake form or questionnaire completed, or written notes taken, during the intake, and any consent to release forms, requests for medical records, authorization of release forms, or other forms completed for the purpose of obtaining records on the client’s behalf. 5. Any and all entries into an electronic or hard copy database or log relating to any Dust Mask Client’s intake by (or first contact with) Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office. 6. Any and all folder/document creation dates for any Dust Mask Client file stored on a network, server, or local computer to which You have access, or which You use, maintain, control or own. 7. Any and all logs or other records of activity in Dust Mask Client’s case in any calendar, word document, spreadsheet, or other electronic or paper format maintained You. 8. Records sufficient to show dates of travel by You to Kentucky for purposes relating to the investigation, filing or prosecution of claims filed on behalf of Dust Mask Clients. 9. Any and all contracts, agreements, or other documents reflecting a split-fee or similar arrangement between You and Glenn Hammond, Johnny Givens, Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office, and/or Givens Law PLLC relating to representation of Dust Mask Clients in claims filed against 3M. 10. Any and all records relating to bar disciplinary actions alleged against You, Glenn Hammond, or Johnny Givens. 11. Any and all records relating to any legal malpractices allegations or claims brought against You, Glenn Hammond, or Johnny Givens. 12. Any and all documents that You discovered on or around March 17, 2023 that had not been disclosed to You by Glenn Hammond, as described in a statement by Your counsel reported on March 22, 2023 by Law 360 that “on March 17, [You] went to Kentucky to review files at the Hammond office, only to discover that some documents were never disclosed to” You. 13. The referral agreement between You or Martin Walton and Hammond and/or Glenn Matin Hammond Law Office regarding dust mask claims dated May 5, 2020, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1. 14. Any and all communications between You, Hammond, and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices relating to entering into a referral agreement and dust mask cases generally, prior to entering into the referral agreement dated May 5, 2020, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1. 15. Any and all files relating to the dust mask claims transferred electronically to You by Hammond and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices on or around May 5, 2020, upon entering into a referral agreement with Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 1. 16. Any and all client files sent electronically to You and/or Martin Walton by Hammond and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices after entering into the referral agreement, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 3. 17. The agreement, or any documents evidencing an agreement, entered into between You and/or Martin Walton on the one hand, and Johnny Givens and/or Givens Law Firm PLLC, whereby Givens began serving Your lead co-counsel on the dust mask claims as of September 20, 2023, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 4. 18. Any and all communications by which You learned of the filling of other dust mask cases by Glenn Martin Hammond Law Offices after the filing of the Randy Adams, et al. case, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 5. 19. Any and all files sent electronically to You and/or Martin Walton by Hammond and/or the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office after the filing of additional cases by the Glenn Martin Hammond Law Office following the filing of the Randy Adams, et al. case, including but not limited to intake sheets and other client documents, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 5. 20. Any and all communications, documents or other records upon which You relied in forming the “belief and understanding that the Hammond law firm turned over all client information related to the client’s dust mask case when the electronic files were sent to” Martin Walton, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 6. 21. Any and all documents or records relating to Your “standard operating procedure” for ordering records on behalf of clients, including clients with dust mask claims, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 7. 22. Any and all communications, documents or other records relating to the efforts by Your firm “to order records for Johnny Wilson as per [Your] standard operating procedure,” as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 7. 23. Any and all communications between You and Hammond, the Glenn Matin Hammond Law Offices, and/or Bernice Wilson relating to the medical authorization dated January 3, 2019, in the records from Dr. Ammisetty, as described in the Affidavit of Mike Martin dated March 24, 2023. See Ex. 1 (Mot. to Stay), Ex. 1, ¶ 7. 24. Records sufficient to show dates of travel by You to Kentucky on or around March 16, 2023, for purposes of “discuss[ing] a response to the order of March 9, 2023,” as des