Preview
CAUSE NO.
DAVID LOPEZ,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
laintiff
OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
STEVEN F. HOTZE AND LIBERTY
CENTER FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
efendants
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
DISTRICT ATTORNEYPURSUANT TO SUBPOENA
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiff DAVID LOPEZ in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
files their Motion to Compel Harris County District Attorney Offi (DA) to Respond to
Subpoena.
TheCourt should compel the DA to rovide the ubpoenaed ecords forthe Following
Reasons
The documents subpoenaed by Plaintiff are relevant to Plaintiff’civil case; and
While the privilege cited by the DA is informed by importan olicy concerns,
these concerns do not apply to Plaintiff s case.
The District Attorney s generic response to subpoena is overly broad, does not
reference what documents, reports, video tapes, photographs or statements they
seek to protect or why such discovery would interfere with the detection
investigation or prosecution of crimes.
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 1
aintiff not seek social security numbers, driver s linse numbers, dates of
birth, pre sentence inestigation records, emergency medical services
provider/patient communications and emergency medical rvices records,
medical records and/or ici patient communications or records made
confidential under the family code.
Plaintiff agrees to a protective order to utilize the acquired documents in this
litigation only
The Court may order the documents produced in camera.
District Attorneyhas t complied with Rules 176.6 (c)and Rule 193.3(a)
A person may withhold material or information claimed to be privileged but must comply
with Rule 193.3 (176.6 . A party withholding alleged privileged material or information must
state in the respon that information or material responsive to the request has been withheld, the
request to which the information or material relates,and the privilege or privileges asserted.
For example, the District Attorney has not specified what constitute fice case file
including, offense reports, statements, media and business records
District Attorney has not complied with Section 30.00 Civil Pract ice and Remedies
Code
Under section 30.006 th District Attorney may only withhold documents or other
materials that would interfere with the investigation or prosecution of criminal acts. he Court
may order discovery from a non party law enforcement agency if the discovery sought is
relevant; and there is a specific need for the discovery. The District Attorney may not withhold,
under any privilege, photographs, field measurements, scene drawings and accident
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
reconstruction done in conjunction with the investigation of the underlying accident (See
section 30.006 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code).
30.006. CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RECORDS NOT
SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY. (a) In this section, "law enforcement agency" means a
governmental agency that employs a peace officer as defined under Article Code of
riminal Procedure.
(b) This section does not apply to an action in which a law enforcement agency is a
party.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a court in a civil action may not order
discovery from a nonparty law enforcement agency of information, records, documents,
evidentiary materials, and tangible things if:
(1) the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or tangible
things deal with:
(A) the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime; or
(B) an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that does
not result in conviction or deferred adjudication; and
(2) the release of the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or
tangible things would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of criminal acts.
(d) On motion of a party, the court may order discovery from a nonparty law
enforcement agency of information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible
things described by Subsection (c) if the court determines, after in camera inspection, that
(1) the discovery sought is relevant; and
(2) thereis a specific need for the discovery
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
(e) This section does not apply to
(1) a report of an accident under Chapter , TransportationCode; and
otographs, field measurements, scene drawings, and accident
reconstruction done in conjunction with the investigation of the underlying accident.
IV.
When law enforcement privilege is asserted by a non party law enforcement agency,
Section 30.006(d) allows for the court, on a party s motion, to conduct an camera review to
etermine if the discovery sought is relevant and that there is specific need for it and if so, order
the discovery. Finally, since photographs created in conjunction with the ivestigation of an
underlying accident are not protected by law enforcement privilege, there is a potential argument
that individual still frames from the body camera are photos and a specific one showing Aguirre
kneeling on Lopez and pointing a fire m athim would not be subject to protection.
District Attorney has failed to Meet SeconRequirem ent of Law EnforcementPrivilege
Under Section 30.006(c), a court in civil actions may not order discovery from a non
party law enforcement agency if the information deals with (1) the detection, investigation o
prosecution of a crime or an investigation that does not result in conviction or deferred
adjudication, and (2) the release of such information would interfere with the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of crimes. RAC ODE The
blanket assertion of the privilege did not include any information as to how they meet the second
requirement of showing such discovery would interfere with detection, investigation or
prosecution of crimes. The DA assertion that the release the information would interfere
with the prosecution because itcould result in public disclosure prior to jury selection and the
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
information being presented as evidence in the criminal case seems to be unsupported. The
motion to compel would weaken the s ability to assert law enforcement privilege on the
grounds that the DA has failed to make the required showing of interference.
Procedural & Factual Bac ground
This case was filed on March 29, 202 The joinder deadline is June 21, 2021.
David Lopez was aulted and falsely imprisoned by rk Anthony Aguir forme
Captain with the Houston Police Department while working for an r the direct supervision
of Defendants Steven F. tzeand Liberty Center for God and Country. Aguirrewas dischar
HPD in 2003 in part for his wrongful use of police tactics of which Defendants had actual
knowledge of before hiring Aguir
the predawn darkness of October , 2020, Mark Aguirre, w le working for and
under the direct supervision of Defendant Steven F. Hotze and Liberty Center for God and
ountry, without warning, intentionally rammed his SUV to the box truck that David Lope
was operating at approximately 5:30 a.m. ark Aguirre driving a black SUV, pulled into David
Lope lane and inte ionally struck the back of his vehicle David Lopez immediate pulled
r and walked to the rear of his x truck to determine the welfare of Mark Aguirre ark
Aguirre exited the black SUV nd pointed a pistol at David Lopez. David Lopez eared for
believing Mark Aguirre was robbing him ith his loaded gun point d at Mr. Lopez,
Defendant Ag began shouting order earing that he is going to shoot m and that his
life was bout to e on the side of the road David Lopez realized h only hope was to
perate, so he laid on the ground while Mark Aguirre held a gun to himand placed his knee on
David Lopez ack. Addition vehicles driven by Agui s accomplice pulled p to he scene
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
and participated in Aguirre s assault while Agu held David Lope at gun point on the ground
with his knee on his back. Aguirre ordered accompli to search the box truck while he
detained David Lopez. David Lopez ver heard th accomplice report to Aguirre that the box
ruck was clear. W Lopez stillface down on the side of the road at gunpoint with
uirre knee in his bac at gunpoin and without permissio one of Aguirre ccomplices
ole vid Lopez ox tru and drove it from the scene. During the entire episode David
opez ying on the ground with Aguirre s knee on his back and pistol to his head.At one
point, Aguirre cocked his pistol, one errant move from taking Lopez s life. avid Lopez feared
or his and believed he was being robbed since his truck was bein olen and driven away
by an ccomplice. Houston Police Officer ene upon the scene and stopped he box
truck was later cated where it had been abandoned few blocks away in the block of
AnagnotStreet.
Aguirre stated to the HPD offic hat he was part a group of private citizens that call
themselves Liberty Center for God and Count and that they were vestigating a voter fraud
ballot harvesting conspiracy that the ieved avid Lopez was operating out of his home
Aguirre st that he and his friends set up a command post at the Springfield Suit Marriott
located at 1820 Country Place, Pearland, B azoria County, Texas. He also stated to HPD
officers that he is friends had been conducting 24 hour surveillance on Lopez ome for
the past 4 days and that David Lopez had approximately audulent mail ballots in hi
possession and that pez was using Hispani children to sign the ballots because the children
fingerprints would not appear in any database. Aguirre further admitted that he crashed into the
Lopez box truck that ointed a firearm at Lopez and hel him on the ground at gunpoint.
Aguirre refused to provide the names of his accompli who were assisting him and conducting
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
the surveillance. Aguirre tated the investigating officer that he investigating offic could
be a hero or part of the p oble Aguirre also ted to the investigating officer I just hope
re a patriot and that he (Aguirre had already contacted the Texas Rangers, Ken Paxto and
the Regional Director of the Texas Department of Pulic Safety for assistanceLopez en
greed to allow the earchof hi s home where he lives with his wife and minor daughter
The group traveled th Aguirre to where Lopez lived in Harris CountAguirr e pointed
out where he would ark his car to con duct surveillance. Lopez confirmed that the residence and
hed belonged to him and Lopez allowed HP to arch his vehicle, home and storage shed.
Lopez had no other way to return to freedom excet to allow this invasion his privacy and
rove he had done nothing wrong. HPD searched the bil home, shed and vehicle and found
absolutely no evidence of voter fraud or ballot rvesting. The HPD officer also found that
Lopez s box truck contained e pment consistent with his occupation as an air conditioning
repair technician. They also f opez s home to be propriately furnished as a family home
and the home to be filled with ordinary household items. No evidence of the conspiracy was
found.
The enior nvestigator received a phone call from Lt. Wayne Rubio with the Texa
Attorne Genera s office. Lt. Rubio stated that Aguirre contacted him on October (3
ays prior to the incident) o request that the Attorney General office coduct a traffic stop for
his investigation Lt. Rubio told Aguirre he could not a sign olice unit to conduct a traffic
stopLt. Rubio stated he recei ved a secod call from Ag uirre on October 19, 2020 (the date of
the incident) and was told tat he in a motor vehicle accident with a oter fraud suspect and
that he pulled a gun on the in vidual, David Lopez. Lt. Rubio further stated that Aguirre
emed upset that the Department of Public Safety would not stop and detain an ndividual base
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
solely n Agui s uncorroborated and unfounded conspiracy allegations.
The senior icer reviewed the body worn camera recordings made by the first officer
the scen and confirmed that Aguirre was detaining Lopez by kneeling on his back with a
irearm
guir urther acknowledged that one of his co onspirators moved Lopez s box truck t
parking lot and it was searched without permission from the owner, David Lpez. The sen ior
investigator confirmed th two rooms at the Spring Hill Suit by Marriott been rented
Aguirre fro ctober 17 hrough October 21, 2020. It was fur her confirmed that Aguirre
had received wire transfers of over $0,000 fro account owned and controlled by Liberty
enter for God and Country in the nth proceeding he ggravated assault and fals
imprisonment and immediately after the incident. berty Center for God and Country paid
money to Aguirre in three installments, one in eptember, and two in October of 2019.Two of
the payments were received prior to th aggravated assault and fals mprisonment and the third
payment on October 20, the day after the aggravated assault and false imprisonment.
clear ratification of uirre actions.
guirre was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapo the Harris County
District Attorn Office second degree felony, punishable o 20 years in priso He was
released on a $30,000 bond. Harris Coty DA is q ed as stating He crossed the line
from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime and we are lucky no one was killed The
also stated His guirre) lleged investigation was backward from the start first alleging a
crim had occur d and then trying to prove it happened Aguir s claims of election fraud
re found to be aseless after thoro ugh investigation by Houston Police and by Constable
ecinct lan Rosen, as part of the Harris County Election Security Task Force.
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
Subpoena
On April 15, 2021 Plaintiff issued ubpoena to on Harris County District Attorney
office (DA), requesting records pertaining to HPD s incident number 1387349 Fol lowing
service of the subpoena, Mr. Uriel Tuck, Assistant District Attorney, advised Plaintiff s attorney
that the DA was asserting Privilege and Objection rsuant to R ules 176.6(c) and 193.3(a) of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure including the Law Enforcement Privilege and the
Prosecutorial Work Product Privilege.(See xhibits A & B)
efore issuing the subpoena, Plaintiff made an Open Records Request for the same
nformation. Plaintiff received a redacted incident report, called Preliminary Public Release
report but not the full incident report, (See Exhibit C).
Documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff
Documents Sought are Relevantto Plaintiff Causes of Action
Respondea uperior and/or icarious iability all times relevan he incident,
all of the cts and omissions complained of herein were committed by employees, servants
agents, management, or contractors of Defendants who were acti thin the course and scope
of their employment or agency and who were acting r thdirection or control efendants.
Consequently, Defendants are vicariously liable for all of the acts and/or omissions that were
committed those persons within the ourse and scope of their employment, agency and/or
direction of Defendant or committedby Defendants themse es.
Actual uthority Defendant Steven F. Hotz erty Center tentionally
erred authority on the agent, Mark Aguirre and intentionally allowe he agent, Mark
Aguirre, to believe he had authority or through the lack of due care, allowed the agent to believe
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE
he had authority. he aget, Mar , was acting ithin the scope of his agency when he
committed the torts of assault and false imprisonment causing bodily injury, mental anguish and
hysical pain.
Apparent uthority Defendant teven F. Hotze and Liberty Center affirmatively held
the agent or agent as having authority to act on his behalf and knowingly permitting the
agent, Mark Airre agen , to hold himself out as having authority or acting with such a
lack of ordinary ca e as to clothe the agent or non agent with indicia of authoritDefendants
conduct caused the agent to commit the torts of false imprisonment and assault causing physical
pain, bodily injury and mental anguish.
Exhibits
Subpoena
Letter Response and Objection from District Attorney s Offic
Redacted Incident Report
Affidavit of Officer J. Varela
Harris County District Attorney s Privilege Log
Arguments and Authorities
The purpose of discovery is to “seek truth”, so that disputes may be decided on what the
facts reveal, not what facts are concealed.” xelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550,
Tex. . Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the
case.Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a). Information is discoverable as long as it appears
“reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 10
e Texas Open Records Act provides that public information maintained
governmental bodies shall be made available to the public during normal business hours. Tex.
Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 6252 17a 3 (Supp. 1982). T Harris County strict Attorne cite
the enforcement privilege as an ception to the public disclosure rule. The la
enforcement privilege and the policy reasons behind it are articulated by the view that
disclosure of information which might unduly interfere with law enforcement, such as
isclosure of names of persons arr ested as the result of undercover narcotics work, where other
persons involved had not been arrested, or which might conflict with a right of privacy such as
e name of a serious sexual assault, is not equired, since such information is within the
exception to required disclosure found in the Open Records Law. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art.
3 (a) (8). See Houston v. Hous. Chronicle Pub. Co., 673 S. 2d 316, 317 (Tex. App.
Houston Dist.] 1984)
However, th policy reasons that inform the above privilege are not applicable in the
Plaintiff s case. Specifically, the Plaintiff himself is the victim of the crimes investigated by the
arris County DA and HPD and prosecuted by the Harris unty District Attorney s Office.
ince Plaintiff is e party seeking disclosure of this information, any privacy concerns may be
waived by Plaintiff. Moreover, in this case the assailant that attached Plaintiff was identified,
apprehended, and is waiting trial.
Finally, Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in discovering information relevant to his ivil
case.
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 11
Protective Order
Plaintiff s counsel is willing to enter into a protective order with the District Attorney
office limiting the use of any documents produced by the District Attorney s office to this civil
roceeding.
In Camera Inspection
The Court has the authority to order all documents produced in camera
Pray
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff DAVID LOPEZ pray e Court
ant Plain Motion to Compel and Compel Harris County District Attorney Office to
Respond to Subpoenaand f rther relief to which they may s how themselvesto be justly ent ed.
Dated this day of May
CERTIFICATE OFCONFERENCE
compliance with the Court s procedures, Plaintiff counsel, Scott Brazil, certifies the
following:
The attorney representing the Liberty Center for God and Country was contacted and
es this Motion.
The attorney for Steven F. Hotzwas contacted but failed to respond.
The attorney for the District Attorney Office was contacted and is opposed to this
tion.
Plaintiff s counsel and Counselfor the Distr ict Attorney s office discussed this matter
both over the telephone and through emails and were unable to arrive at an agreement.
/s/ K. Scott Brazil
K. Scott Brazil
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 12
Respectfully submitted,
BRAZIL& DUNN, LLP
/s/K. Scott Brazil
K. Scott Brazil
31 Champion Forest Dr., Suite 406
Houston, Texas
Telephone (281) 580 6310
Facsimile(281) 580 6362
scott@brazilanddunn.com
LAW OFFICE OF DICKY GRIGG, P.C.
/s/ Dicky Grigg
Dicky Grigg
4407 Bee Caves Rd., Suite111 Bldg 1
West Lake Hills, Texas 78746
Telephone (512) 474 6061
Facsimile(512) 582 8260
dicky@grigg law.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff tion to Compel Response to Subpoen have been served upon all counsel
of record in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the
of May
/s/K. Scott Brazil
K. Scott Brazil
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 13
Preview
CAUSE NO. DAVID LOPEZ, IN THE DISTRICT COURT laintiff OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS STEVEN F. HOTZE AND LIBERTY CENTER FOR GOD AND COUNTRY efendants JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DISTRICT ATTORNEYPURSUANT TO SUBPOENA TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiff DAVID LOPEZ in the above-entitled and numbered cause and files their Motion to Compel Harris County District Attorney Offi (DA) to Respond to Subpoena. TheCourt should compel the DA to rovide the ubpoenaed ecords forthe Following Reasons The documents subpoenaed by Plaintiff are relevant to Plaintiff’civil case; and While the privilege cited by the DA is informed by importan olicy concerns, these concerns do not apply to Plaintiff s case. The District Attorney s generic response to subpoena is overly broad, does not reference what documents, reports, video tapes, photographs or statements they seek to protect or why such discovery would interfere with the detection investigation or prosecution of crimes. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 1 aintiff not seek social security numbers, driver s linse numbers, dates of birth, pre sentence inestigation records, emergency medical services provider/patient communications and emergency medical rvices records, medical records and/or ici patient communications or records made confidential under the family code. Plaintiff agrees to a protective order to utilize the acquired documents in this litigation only The Court may order the documents produced in camera. District Attorneyhas t complied with Rules 176.6 (c)and Rule 193.3(a) A person may withhold material or information claimed to be privileged but must comply with Rule 193.3 (176.6 . A party withholding alleged privileged material or information must state in the respon that information or material responsive to the request has been withheld, the request to which the information or material relates,and the privilege or privileges asserted. For example, the District Attorney has not specified what constitute fice case file including, offense reports, statements, media and business records District Attorney has not complied with Section 30.00 Civil Pract ice and Remedies Code Under section 30.006 th District Attorney may only withhold documents or other materials that would interfere with the investigation or prosecution of criminal acts. he Court may order discovery from a non party law enforcement agency if the discovery sought is relevant; and there is a specific need for the discovery. The District Attorney may not withhold, under any privilege, photographs, field measurements, scene drawings and accident PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE reconstruction done in conjunction with the investigation of the underlying accident (See section 30.006 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code). 30.006. CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RECORDS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY. (a) In this section, "law enforcement agency" means a governmental agency that employs a peace officer as defined under Article Code of riminal Procedure. (b) This section does not apply to an action in which a law enforcement agency is a party. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a court in a civil action may not order discovery from a nonparty law enforcement agency of information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible things if: (1) the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or tangible things deal with: (A) the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime; or (B) an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication; and (2) the release of the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or tangible things would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of criminal acts. (d) On motion of a party, the court may order discovery from a nonparty law enforcement agency of information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible things described by Subsection (c) if the court determines, after in camera inspection, that (1) the discovery sought is relevant; and (2) thereis a specific need for the discovery PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE (e) This section does not apply to (1) a report of an accident under Chapter , TransportationCode; and otographs, field measurements, scene drawings, and accident reconstruction done in conjunction with the investigation of the underlying accident. IV. When law enforcement privilege is asserted by a non party law enforcement agency, Section 30.006(d) allows for the court, on a party s motion, to conduct an camera review to etermine if the discovery sought is relevant and that there is specific need for it and if so, order the discovery. Finally, since photographs created in conjunction with the ivestigation of an underlying accident are not protected by law enforcement privilege, there is a potential argument that individual still frames from the body camera are photos and a specific one showing Aguirre kneeling on Lopez and pointing a fire m athim would not be subject to protection. District Attorney has failed to Meet SeconRequirem ent of Law EnforcementPrivilege Under Section 30.006(c), a court in civil actions may not order discovery from a non party law enforcement agency if the information deals with (1) the detection, investigation o prosecution of a crime or an investigation that does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication, and (2) the release of such information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crimes. RAC ODE The blanket assertion of the privilege did not include any information as to how they meet the second requirement of showing such discovery would interfere with detection, investigation or prosecution of crimes. The DA assertion that the release the information would interfere with the prosecution because itcould result in public disclosure prior to jury selection and the PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE information being presented as evidence in the criminal case seems to be unsupported. The motion to compel would weaken the s ability to assert law enforcement privilege on the grounds that the DA has failed to make the required showing of interference. Procedural & Factual Bac ground This case was filed on March 29, 202 The joinder deadline is June 21, 2021. David Lopez was aulted and falsely imprisoned by rk Anthony Aguir forme Captain with the Houston Police Department while working for an r the direct supervision of Defendants Steven F. tzeand Liberty Center for God and Country. Aguirrewas dischar HPD in 2003 in part for his wrongful use of police tactics of which Defendants had actual knowledge of before hiring Aguir the predawn darkness of October , 2020, Mark Aguirre, w le working for and under the direct supervision of Defendant Steven F. Hotze and Liberty Center for God and ountry, without warning, intentionally rammed his SUV to the box truck that David Lope was operating at approximately 5:30 a.m. ark Aguirre driving a black SUV, pulled into David Lope lane and inte ionally struck the back of his vehicle David Lopez immediate pulled r and walked to the rear of his x truck to determine the welfare of Mark Aguirre ark Aguirre exited the black SUV nd pointed a pistol at David Lopez. David Lopez eared for believing Mark Aguirre was robbing him ith his loaded gun point d at Mr. Lopez, Defendant Ag began shouting order earing that he is going to shoot m and that his life was bout to e on the side of the road David Lopez realized h only hope was to perate, so he laid on the ground while Mark Aguirre held a gun to himand placed his knee on David Lopez ack. Addition vehicles driven by Agui s accomplice pulled p to he scene PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE and participated in Aguirre s assault while Agu held David Lope at gun point on the ground with his knee on his back. Aguirre ordered accompli to search the box truck while he detained David Lopez. David Lopez ver heard th accomplice report to Aguirre that the box ruck was clear. W Lopez stillface down on the side of the road at gunpoint with uirre knee in his bac at gunpoin and without permissio one of Aguirre ccomplices ole vid Lopez ox tru and drove it from the scene. During the entire episode David opez ying on the ground with Aguirre s knee on his back and pistol to his head.At one point, Aguirre cocked his pistol, one errant move from taking Lopez s life. avid Lopez feared or his and believed he was being robbed since his truck was bein olen and driven away by an ccomplice. Houston Police Officer ene upon the scene and stopped he box truck was later cated where it had been abandoned few blocks away in the block of AnagnotStreet. Aguirre stated to the HPD offic hat he was part a group of private citizens that call themselves Liberty Center for God and Count and that they were vestigating a voter fraud ballot harvesting conspiracy that the ieved avid Lopez was operating out of his home Aguirre st that he and his friends set up a command post at the Springfield Suit Marriott located at 1820 Country Place, Pearland, B azoria County, Texas. He also stated to HPD officers that he is friends had been conducting 24 hour surveillance on Lopez ome for the past 4 days and that David Lopez had approximately audulent mail ballots in hi possession and that pez was using Hispani children to sign the ballots because the children fingerprints would not appear in any database. Aguirre further admitted that he crashed into the Lopez box truck that ointed a firearm at Lopez and hel him on the ground at gunpoint. Aguirre refused to provide the names of his accompli who were assisting him and conducting PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE the surveillance. Aguirre tated the investigating officer that he investigating offic could be a hero or part of the p oble Aguirre also ted to the investigating officer I just hope re a patriot and that he (Aguirre had already contacted the Texas Rangers, Ken Paxto and the Regional Director of the Texas Department of Pulic Safety for assistanceLopez en greed to allow the earchof hi s home where he lives with his wife and minor daughter The group traveled th Aguirre to where Lopez lived in Harris CountAguirr e pointed out where he would ark his car to con duct surveillance. Lopez confirmed that the residence and hed belonged to him and Lopez allowed HP to arch his vehicle, home and storage shed. Lopez had no other way to return to freedom excet to allow this invasion his privacy and rove he had done nothing wrong. HPD searched the bil home, shed and vehicle and found absolutely no evidence of voter fraud or ballot rvesting. The HPD officer also found that Lopez s box truck contained e pment consistent with his occupation as an air conditioning repair technician. They also f opez s home to be propriately furnished as a family home and the home to be filled with ordinary household items. No evidence of the conspiracy was found. The enior nvestigator received a phone call from Lt. Wayne Rubio with the Texa Attorne Genera s office. Lt. Rubio stated that Aguirre contacted him on October (3 ays prior to the incident) o request that the Attorney General office coduct a traffic stop for his investigation Lt. Rubio told Aguirre he could not a sign olice unit to conduct a traffic stopLt. Rubio stated he recei ved a secod call from Ag uirre on October 19, 2020 (the date of the incident) and was told tat he in a motor vehicle accident with a oter fraud suspect and that he pulled a gun on the in vidual, David Lopez. Lt. Rubio further stated that Aguirre emed upset that the Department of Public Safety would not stop and detain an ndividual base PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE solely n Agui s uncorroborated and unfounded conspiracy allegations. The senior icer reviewed the body worn camera recordings made by the first officer the scen and confirmed that Aguirre was detaining Lopez by kneeling on his back with a irearm guir urther acknowledged that one of his co onspirators moved Lopez s box truck t parking lot and it was searched without permission from the owner, David Lpez. The sen ior investigator confirmed th two rooms at the Spring Hill Suit by Marriott been rented Aguirre fro ctober 17 hrough October 21, 2020. It was fur her confirmed that Aguirre had received wire transfers of over $0,000 fro account owned and controlled by Liberty enter for God and Country in the nth proceeding he ggravated assault and fals imprisonment and immediately after the incident. berty Center for God and Country paid money to Aguirre in three installments, one in eptember, and two in October of 2019.Two of the payments were received prior to th aggravated assault and fals mprisonment and the third payment on October 20, the day after the aggravated assault and false imprisonment. clear ratification of uirre actions. guirre was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapo the Harris County District Attorn Office second degree felony, punishable o 20 years in priso He was released on a $30,000 bond. Harris Coty DA is q ed as stating He crossed the line from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime and we are lucky no one was killed The also stated His guirre) lleged investigation was backward from the start first alleging a crim had occur d and then trying to prove it happened Aguir s claims of election fraud re found to be aseless after thoro ugh investigation by Houston Police and by Constable ecinct lan Rosen, as part of the Harris County Election Security Task Force. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE Subpoena On April 15, 2021 Plaintiff issued ubpoena to on Harris County District Attorney office (DA), requesting records pertaining to HPD s incident number 1387349 Fol lowing service of the subpoena, Mr. Uriel Tuck, Assistant District Attorney, advised Plaintiff s attorney that the DA was asserting Privilege and Objection rsuant to R ules 176.6(c) and 193.3(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure including the Law Enforcement Privilege and the Prosecutorial Work Product Privilege.(See xhibits A & B) efore issuing the subpoena, Plaintiff made an Open Records Request for the same nformation. Plaintiff received a redacted incident report, called Preliminary Public Release report but not the full incident report, (See Exhibit C). Documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff Documents Sought are Relevantto Plaintiff Causes of Action Respondea uperior and/or icarious iability all times relevan he incident, all of the cts and omissions complained of herein were committed by employees, servants agents, management, or contractors of Defendants who were acti thin the course and scope of their employment or agency and who were acting r thdirection or control efendants. Consequently, Defendants are vicariously liable for all of the acts and/or omissions that were committed those persons within the ourse and scope of their employment, agency and/or direction of Defendant or committedby Defendants themse es. Actual uthority Defendant Steven F. Hotz erty Center tentionally erred authority on the agent, Mark Aguirre and intentionally allowe he agent, Mark Aguirre, to believe he had authority or through the lack of due care, allowed the agent to believe PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE he had authority. he aget, Mar , was acting ithin the scope of his agency when he committed the torts of assault and false imprisonment causing bodily injury, mental anguish and hysical pain. Apparent uthority Defendant teven F. Hotze and Liberty Center affirmatively held the agent or agent as having authority to act on his behalf and knowingly permitting the agent, Mark Airre agen , to hold himself out as having authority or acting with such a lack of ordinary ca e as to clothe the agent or non agent with indicia of authoritDefendants conduct caused the agent to commit the torts of false imprisonment and assault causing physical pain, bodily injury and mental anguish. Exhibits Subpoena Letter Response and Objection from District Attorney s Offic Redacted Incident Report Affidavit of Officer J. Varela Harris County District Attorney s Privilege Log Arguments and Authorities The purpose of discovery is to “seek truth”, so that disputes may be decided on what the facts reveal, not what facts are concealed.” xelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, Tex. . Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case.Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a). Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 10 e Texas Open Records Act provides that public information maintained governmental bodies shall be made available to the public during normal business hours. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 6252 17a 3 (Supp. 1982). T Harris County strict Attorne cite the enforcement privilege as an ception to the public disclosure rule. The la enforcement privilege and the policy reasons behind it are articulated by the view that disclosure of information which might unduly interfere with law enforcement, such as isclosure of names of persons arr ested as the result of undercover narcotics work, where other persons involved had not been arrested, or which might conflict with a right of privacy such as e name of a serious sexual assault, is not equired, since such information is within the exception to required disclosure found in the Open Records Law. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 3 (a) (8). See Houston v. Hous. Chronicle Pub. Co., 673 S. 2d 316, 317 (Tex. App. Houston Dist.] 1984) However, th policy reasons that inform the above privilege are not applicable in the Plaintiff s case. Specifically, the Plaintiff himself is the victim of the crimes investigated by the arris County DA and HPD and prosecuted by the Harris unty District Attorney s Office. ince Plaintiff is e party seeking disclosure of this information, any privacy concerns may be waived by Plaintiff. Moreover, in this case the assailant that attached Plaintiff was identified, apprehended, and is waiting trial. Finally, Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in discovering information relevant to his ivil case. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 11 Protective Order Plaintiff s counsel is willing to enter into a protective order with the District Attorney office limiting the use of any documents produced by the District Attorney s office to this civil roceeding. In Camera Inspection The Court has the authority to order all documents produced in camera Pray WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff DAVID LOPEZ pray e Court ant Plain Motion to Compel and Compel Harris County District Attorney Office to Respond to Subpoenaand f rther relief to which they may s how themselvesto be justly ent ed. Dated this day of May CERTIFICATE OFCONFERENCE compliance with the Court s procedures, Plaintiff counsel, Scott Brazil, certifies the following: The attorney representing the Liberty Center for God and Country was contacted and es this Motion. The attorney for Steven F. Hotzwas contacted but failed to respond. The attorney for the District Attorney Office was contacted and is opposed to this tion. Plaintiff s counsel and Counselfor the Distr ict Attorney s office discussed this matter both over the telephone and through emails and were unable to arrive at an agreement. /s/ K. Scott Brazil K. Scott Brazil PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 12 Respectfully submitted, BRAZIL& DUNN, LLP /s/K. Scott Brazil K. Scott Brazil 31 Champion Forest Dr., Suite 406 Houston, Texas Telephone (281) 580 6310 Facsimile(281) 580 6362 scott@brazilanddunn.com LAW OFFICE OF DICKY GRIGG, P.C. /s/ Dicky Grigg Dicky Grigg 4407 Bee Caves Rd., Suite111 Bldg 1 West Lake Hills, Texas 78746 Telephone (512) 474 6061 Facsimile(512) 582 8260 dicky@grigg law.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff tion to Compel Response to Subpoen have been served upon all counsel of record in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the of May /s/K. Scott Brazil K. Scott Brazil PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA GE 13