Motion to Compel Discovery in Robert L Moody, Jr. vs. Greer, Herz, & Adams, LLP, Et Al| Trellis.Law

On October 20, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Moody, Robert L, Jr., and Herz, Irwin "Buddy", Three R Trusts, for Injury/Damage - Other in the District Court of Galveston County.

Preview
23
RO-CU- IS Sf 7/29/2020 4:13 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County

(22
Envelope No. 44940010
By: Lewis John-Miller
Filed: 7/29/2020 4:13 PM

CAUSE NO. 2020-31023

ROBERT L. MOODY, JR. IN THE DISTRICT C OF
5, O.
IN,“ao
HARRIS COUNTY gpExKe Coy
a “S70, 2 0 Ly "0
Vv 55" JUDICIAL

GREER, HERZ, & ADAMS, LLP,
IRWIN “BUDDY” HERZ, JR. and
ROSS RANKIN MOODY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF ROBERT L. MOODY, JR.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Robert L. Moody, Jr. (“Bobby Moody, Jr.”) files this motion to compel discovery

from Defendants Ross Rankin Moody, Irwin “Buddy” Herz, Jr. (“Herz”), and Greer, Herz, &

Adams, LLP (collectively, “Defendants”).

I Summary of Requested Relief

Defendants represented to Plaintiff this week that they will not fully answer discovery until

the Court rules on their individual motions to transfer venue, currently set for hearing on October

13, 2020. They have also indicated they intend to seek a protective order.

This Court should compel Defendants to answer discovery because Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 88 unequivocally states, “Discovery shall not be abated or otherwise affected by the

pendency of a motion to transfer venue.”

Tl. Background

This is an egregious case of a trustee and lawyer taking advantage of his position to

exponentially enrich himself, his law firm, and his family.! The facts are overwhelming, and most

are not in dispute. The damages sought exceed $100 million.

20-CV- 1564
DCMOCOMP
! See Plaintiff's Original Petition at 1-2 (filed May 21, 2020). Motion to Compe!

| iil Mm
210379

te
On July 13, 2020, Defendants answered this lawsuit and filed individual motions to transfer

venue despite the fact that Herz has a residence in Harris County and a substantial part of

Defendants’ wrongful conduct occurred in Harris County.

Also, on July 13, 2020, Plaintiff served consolidated discovery sets on Defendants.”

Plaintiff served these requests to obtain evidence of Herz’s Harris County residency, evidence of

Defendant’s wrongful conduct, and evidence of where Defendants’ wrongful conduct occurred.

On July 14, 2020, Defendants unilaterally set their motions to transfer venue for a

consolidated hearing on August 31, 2020 on short notice without conferencing with Plaintiff's

counsel. Plaintiffs deadline to respond to Defendants’ motions to transfer was July 30, 2020, less

than two weeks after Defendants set their motions to transfer for hearing. By setting the hearing

on the motions to transfer for August 31st, Defendants effectively rendered Plaintiffs discovery

requests immaterial because Plaintiff was required to file his venue response on July 30th almost

two weeks before Defendants’ deadlines to answer Plaintiff's discovery requests on August 12th.

These deliberate actions forced Plaintiff to file an emergency motion to continue the

transfer hearings in order to conduct initial discovery. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted the

motion to continue the hearing on the motions to transfer and entered an order setting the hearings

on October 13, 2020 to allow Plaintiff time to conduct discovery and answer Defendants motions.

During the July 20, 2020 hearing, Defendants argued that discovery was only needed on

Herz’s residence. Defendants obviously made this argument to limit Plaintiff's ability to conduct

discovery. Plaintiff advised the Court at the hearing that Defendants had in-fact sought transfer on

numerous grounds. At the July 20th continuance hearing, this Court indicated that it was not

inclined to limit discovery but requested that Defendants identify their position in writing.

? Sce Plaintiff's discovery requests to Defendants, attached as Exhibits A, B, and C.

2
te
Immediately after the July 20, 2020 hearing, Defendants notified the Court by letter that

they intended to move forward on four separate venue grounds.’ Despite indicating numerous

bases for transfer, Defendants collectively notified Plaintiff late last week and again early this

week that Defendants have no intention of fully answering discovery and will only answer a few,

select requests they feel are “relevant” to their motions to transfer.’ In other words, Defendants

have made it quite clear they do not want to discuss their wrongful conduct or where their conduct

occurred before this Court.

To be clear: convenience, raised by these Defendants; convenience under the Trust Code,

raised by these Defendants, where the events occurred that give rise to this claim, raised by the

Defendants; and, Trustee Buddy Herz’s residence, are all factual, discovery inquiries that must be

explored before the hearing. The Defendants—not Plaintiff—injected those issues into this case,

but now these very Defendant are attempting to avoid answer discovery on those very topics.

Defendants should not be allowed to raise multiple venue-transfer grounds and then refuse to allow

discovery on the issues they raise.

} See Defendants’ Joint Letter filed on July 22. 2020 where in Defendants asserted four grounds for transfer:
e Defendants seek transfer under Texas Property Code § 115.002(b) because Defendant Herz allegedly only resides
in Galveston County:
Defendants scck transfer under Texas Property Code § 115.002(d) because it is allegedly unjust and unreasonable
to compel the parties and witnesses to litigate in Harris County (meaning. even if the Court finds that Trustee
Herz has a residence in Harris County, it is unjust to sue him here),
Defendants seek transfer under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 155.002(b) because compelling the
parties and witnesses to appear in Harris County is allegedly inconvenient, would work an injustice, cause
Defendants economic and personal hardship. the balance of interests predominates in favor of Galveston, and a
transfer will not work an injustice to any party (standard convenience): and
Defendants further deny that venue is proper in Harris County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies §
15.002(a)(1) and (a)(2) because Defendant Herz, alleged does not reside in Harris County nor did a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claims occur in Harris County (permissive venue).
4 See Correspondence from Defendants, attached as Exhibit D. E. F and G.

3
ee
On July 28, 2020, counsels for all parties convened by Zoom, and Defendants again

indicated that they intended to move forward and file motions for protection immediately on

Plaintiff's discovery requests unless Plaintiff agreed to allow Defendants only to answer the

requests Defendants felt were “relevant” to their motions to transfer.

Plaintiff's counsel urged Defendants, as described more fully below, that Texas Rule of

Civil Procedure 88 unequivocally states: “Discovery shall not be abated or otherwise affected by

the pendency of a motion to transfer venue” and therefore, Defendants had no authority to

circumvent their discovery obligations under Rule 88.

Defendants indicated they would “educate” Plaintiff's counsel on the rules. Thus, this issue

is ripe for consideration and time is of the essence, given Plaintiffs quickly approaching deadline

to respond to Defendants’ motions to transfer.

III. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 88 Confirms a Defendant Cannot Abate or Affect
Discovery Because it Files a Motion to Transfer

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 88 expressly holds that “Discovery shall not be abated or

otherwise affected by pendency of a motion to transfer venue.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 88. This

admonishment could not be clearer.

The great weight of authority confirms there is no exception to Rule 88’s unequivocal

language. For example, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has already decided this very issue in a

case involving a discovery dispute pending a motion to transfer venue, stating, “Rule 88 allows a

movant to file interrogatories, requests for admissions and production, take depositions, and obtain

rulings on motions to compel these methods of discovery” because “Rules permitting discovery

prior to the determination of venue would be meaningless without providing for means of

compelling a recalcitrant party to respond.” Hicks v. Utility Fuels, Inc., 1998 Tex.App. LEXIS

te
6766, *5 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 29, 1998, affirmed) (citing to Nobors Loffland

Drilling Co. v. Martinez, 894 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied)).

In case there is any dispute as to the Fourteenth Court’s position on this issue, the

Fourteenth Court again addressed this very issue in another case involving a discovery dispute

pending a motion to transfer venue, stating,

Appellants do not cite any authority supporting their contention that expert report
requirements or any other deadline is tolled upon the filing of a motion to transfer
venue. With respond to discovery in general, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
provide that discovery “shall not be abated or otherwise affected by pendency of a
motion to transfer venue.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 88. In the absence of any authority
to the contrary, we conclude that a motion to transfer venue has no effect on the
deadline to serve an expert report.

See also i.e. Lopez v. Sinha, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 8199, * (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept.

19, 2006, affirmed) [emphasis added]; see also i.e. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 $.W.2d 268,

270 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. granted) (“Safety-Kleen’s right to discovery cannot be

abated or otherwise affected by the pendency of a motion to transfer venue. Tex. R. Civ. P. 88. We

therefore grant Safety-Kleen’s petition for writ of mandamus.”); Stauder vy. Nichols, 2010

Tex.App. LEXIS 4369, *11 (Tex.App.—Houston [Ist Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) ((plaintiffs]

contend that they could not conduct discovery because [defendant’s] motion to transfer venue

remained pending. As [defendant] contends, however, Rule of Civil Procedure 88 provides

discovery shall not be abated or otherwise affected by pendency of a motion to transfer venue. See

Tex. R. Civ. P. 88.”).
In other words, “once there has been a timely motion to transfer venue, a defendant has no

choice but to continue on in the venue in which he finds himself, correct or not.” Nabors, 894

S.W.2d at 72 (citing to Tex. R. Civ. P. 88) [emphasis added]. The law is clear—Texas courts do

Se
not limit discovery merely because a defendant seeks to transfer venue because Rule 88 expressly

prohibits them from doing so.

IV. The Cases Defendants Cite Are Not Remotely Analogous

In Defendants’ joint response to Plaintiff's motion to continue, Defendants cited three cases

in claiming that it is “perfectly customary” for a Court to limit discovery pending a motion to

transfer venue.° None of Defendants’ cases have anything remotely to do with whether a defendant

can limit a plaintiff from answering discovery or disregard Rule 88 once the defendant files a
39
motion to transfer. Defendants simply “cherry-picke a random sentence of dicta in three

unrelated cases, completely out of context, and are intentionally trying to misrepresent the law and

Rule 88’s clear direction.

In the first case Defendants cite, Jn re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, numerous defendant motor

vehicle dealerships sought a writ of mandamus when the trial court refused to abate and bifurcate

discovery when the defendants claimed the plaintiffs failed to provide proper class notice in a class

action lawsuit.° This case had nothing to do with whether a defendant is entitled to limit, stay, or

avoid discovery under Rule 88 pending a motion to transfer venue.

In the second case Defendants cite, Jn re Williams Companies, Inc., the defendants sought

a writ of mandamus, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it granted a second motion

to compel and entered an overly broad order without concern for privileged documents, relevance,

and pending jurisdictional and forum issues.’ Nowhere in the case were the parties disputing

5 See Defendants’ Joint Response dated July 17. 20203-4.to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Continuc Hearing on
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, p.
6997 §.W. 173 (Tex. 1999).
72017 Tex.App. LEXIS 10526 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 9, 2017. no. pet.)

eS
whether the defendant was entitled to stay or limit discovery pending a motion to transfer venue

nor was Rule 88 at issue altogether.

In the third and final case Defendants cite, Holmes v. S. Methodist Univ., a plaintiff

appealed a trial court’s dismissal of her suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, overruling her

objections, and denying her motion to compel after the plaintiff twice failed a master’s program

exam.*® Again, this case had nothing to do with whether the defendant was entitled to limit or stay

discovery pending a motion to transfer nor was Rule 88 at issue altogether.

Summarily, there is no case in Texas jurisprudence that stands for the proposition that a

Defendant is entitled to limit or preclude a plaintiff from conducting discovery in a case involving

a pending motion to transfer venue nor is there any case that provides an exception to Rule 88’s

clear language. Quite the opposite. All of the cases on point cite to Rule 88 and prevent a defendant

from doing precisely what Defendants are attempting to do here.

V. Conclusion

This Court should compel Defendants to fully answer discovery by August 12, 2020 and

enter an order precluding Defendants’ from objecting to any discovery requests on the basis that

such requests are improper pending the Court’s ruling on any motion to transfer.

[Signature on Following Page]

® 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 5759 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 31, 2016, no pet.).

te
Respectfully submitted,

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM

By: /s/ Anthony G. Buzbee
Anthony G. Buzbee
State Bar No. 24001820
thuzbee@Dixattomneys cont
David L. Bergen
State Bar No. 24097371
dbergentetxattormeys. com
J.P. Morgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 7300
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
Www trattoneys.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
ROBERT L. MOODY, JR.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I conferenced with Defendants’ counsel on July 28, 2020 regarding

Defendants’ refusal to produce discovery pending their motions to transfer, and they indicated they

would not produce the information requested herein, necessitating the filing of this motion.

‘s’ Anthony G. Buzbee
Anthony G. Buzbee

tm
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document has been furnished to the attorneys below in accordance with

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and 21a by the Court’s electronic filing system on July 29, 2020.

Robin C. Gibbs, David J. Beck
Tex. Bar No. 07853000 Tex. Bar No. 00000070
tpibbsi@eibbsbrums con dbeck@beckredden com
Samuel W. Cruse, Il B.D. Daniel
State Bar No. 24036423 Tex. Bar No. 05362200
scruse(@cibbsbruns.com bddaniel@beckredden com
Ross M. MacDonald Allison Standish Miller
State Bar No. 240879. 56 Tex. Bar No. 24046440
-
tmacdon
SENT . by1 ri $8. COU
A 820d any ot
Gibbs & Bruns, LLP, Beck Redden, LLP
1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300, Houston Office
Houston, Texas 77002 1221 McKinney Street
Tel: 713.751/5217 Suite 4500
Fax: 713.750.0903 Houston, Texas 77010
Tel: 713.951.6209
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Fax: 713.951.3720
IRWIN “BUDDY” HERZ, JR.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Harry M. Reasoner GREER, HERZ & ADAMS, LLP
Tex. Bar No. 16642000
hreasoneriavelaw.com
Stacey Neumann Vu
Tex. Bar No. 24047047 s“_Anthony G. Buzbee
svu@velaw.com Anthony G. Buzbee
Page Robinson
Tex. Bar No. 24093053
probinsond@velan LOE
Shelby Hart-Armstrong
Tex. Bar No. 24116490
Shart-armstronadivelaw.com
Vinson & Elkins, LLP
1001 Fannin Street
Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: 713.758.2358
Fax: 713.615.5173

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
ROSS RANKIN MOODY

te
pareteeemen,,
.
“of HARE, S
*e, oa
>;
&".
‘s *
Qo: : 2i
te ~<:

t. o

May. s.
eee eeneseee”

I, Marilyn Burgess, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witmess my official hand and seal of office
this October 19. 2020

Certified Document Number: 91511558

a Cure
Marilyn Burgess, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
“Ur

CAUSE NO 2020-31023

ROBERT L. MOODY, JR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
v 55 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

GREER, HERZ, & ADAMS, LLP
IRWIN “BUDDY” HERZ, JR. and §
ROSS RANKIN MOODY 5 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFE ROBERT L. MOODY, JR.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
TO DEFENDANT GREER, HERZ, & ADAMS, LLP

To Defendant Greer, Herz, & Adams, LLP, by and through its counsel of record, David
Beck, B.D. Daniel, and Allison Miller, of Beck Redden, LLP, Houston Office, 1221
McKinney Street, Suite 4500, Houston, Texas 77010

Plaintiff Robert Moody, Jr. serves his first set of Interrogatory Requests, Requests for

Production, and Requests for Admissions on Defendant Greer, Herz & Adams, LLP pursuant to

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196, 197, and 198

Plaintiff demands that Defendant fully respond, produce, and allow inspection and copying

of the following documents at The Buzbee Law Firm, or at such other reasonable place as. the

Parties may agree to in writing, within thirty (30) days

[Signature on Following Page}

Page 1 of 67

EXHIBIT A
eS
Respectfully submitted,

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM

By: !s/ Anthony G. Buzbee_
Anthony G. Buzbee
State Bar No. 24001820
tbuzbee@ixattormeys com
David L. Bergen
State Bar No. 24097371
dberven@ixattomeys.cam
J.P. Morgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 7300
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
WW [SAttGrmeys. Com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document has been furnished to the attorneys listed below in accordance

with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2! and 21a by email on July 13, 2020,

Robin C. Gibbs,
Tex. Bar No. 07853000
raibbsi@eorbbsbrins.com
Samuel W. Cruse, UII
State Bar No. 24036423
scruse@ourbbsbruns com
Ross M. MacDonald
State Bar No. 24087956
rn
ebenmacdonald@igibbsbruns
inion reenter haa eernnee tonne com
Nn
Gibbs & Bruns, LLP,
1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300,
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: 713.751/5217
Fax: 713.750.0903

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
IRWIN “BUDDY” HERZ, JR.

Page 2 of 67
EXHIBIT A
eS
Harry M. Reasoner
Tex. Bar No. 16642000
30
aE
Stacey Neumann V' u
Tex Bar No. 24047047
SVE
Buk OO?
VARS
Page Robinson
Tex. Bar No. 24093053
robinson Gvelaw.com
Shelby Hart-Armstrong
Tex. Bar No. 24116490
Shart-armstrone@velaw.com
Vinson & Elkins, LLP
1001 Fannin Street
Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: 713.758.2358
Fax: 713.615.5173

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
ROSS RANKIN MOODY

David J. Beck
Tex. Bar No. 00000070
a b eckredden.com
B.D. Daniel
Tex. Bar No. 05362200
bddaniel@abeckredden.com
Allison Standish Miller
Tex. Bar No. 24046440
amilleri@beckredden com
Beck Redden, LLP
Houston Office
1221 Mckinney Street
Suite 4500
Houston, Texas 77010
Tel: 713.951.6209
Fax: 713.951.3720

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
GREER, HERZ & ADAMS, LLP

s. Anthony G. Buzbee
Anthony G. Buzbee

Page 3 of 67

EXHIBIT A
te
INSTRUCTIONS

These requests are to be answered separately and fully in writing no later than thirty (30)
days after the date of service on you.

With respect to the requests for production of documents below, you are instructed to
produce for examination and copying all of the requested documents and other tangible
items described that are within your possession, custody or control, at the offices of The
Buzbee Law Firm, no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of these discovery
requests. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 196.3(a).

If you object to answering any of these discovery requests, or withhold documents from
production in response to these requests, in whole or in part, state your objections and/or
reasons for not responding and state all factual and legal justifications that you believe
support your objection or failure to answer or to produce. If you object to answering only
part of a discovery request, specify the part to which you object and respond to the
remainder. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 196.2(b).

If you deem any request to call for privileged information or documents, and assert such
privilege so as to avoid divulging such information or producing such documents, provide
a withholding statement that states with respect to each such document, the date of the
document, the name(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the author(s) and
recipient(s) of each such document, the form of each such document (eg., letter,
memorandum, report, etc.), the subject matter of each such document, the location of each
such document, and the specific, detailed reasons for which you are claiming that each such
document is privileged or otherwise declining to produce such document. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 193.3.

If any document or tangible item requested herein was at one time in existence and under
your possession, custody or control but has been lost, discarded or destroyed or has been
removed from your possession, custody or control, with respect to each such document or
other tangible item:

(a) Identify and describe each such document or other tangible item by date,
title, and type, nature or kind;

(b) State when each such document or other tangible item was most recently in
your possession or subject to your control and what disposition was made
of such document or other tangible item, including an identification of the
person, if any, presently in possession or control of such document or other
tangible item:

(c) State when such document or other tangible item was transferred or
destroyed: identify the person who transferred or destroyed such document
or other tangible item and the person(s) who authorized or directed that the
document or other tangible item be transferred or destroyed; and identify all
persons having knowledge of such transfer or destruction; and state the

Page 4 of 67

EXHIBIT A
te
reason such document or other tangible item was transferred or destroyed;
and

(d) Identify all persons having knowledge of the contents of the documents.

Please organize and label each document produced to correspond with each particular
request. See TEX. R. Civ. P. 196.3{c). Additionally, please attach to each document
produced a notation showing the name or other identification of the file, folder, drawer,
box or other container from which the document was removed, and the name and title of
the individual who had custody of the document at the time of its removal. If you contend
that a secretary or other administrative assistant was the custodian, identify the supervisor
or other individual for whom he or she was holding the document. In lieu of a notation on
each document produced, you may serially number each page of each document and
provide an index of all documents produced, containing the beginning and ending serial
numbers of each document and the other information relating to the document as set forth
above.

All electronically stored documents should be produced in hard copy. In producing
documents consisting only of electronically stored data in machine-readable form in
response to any document request, provide such data in a form that does not require
specialized or proprietary hardware or software. Data files should be in sequential format,
also known as ASCII files or flat files, with the data fields in fixed-column positions. For
each data file provided, the following information should be included: (i) a record layout,
(ii) a short narrative description of the contents of the file, (iii) translation of any coded
fields, (iv) the number of records in the file, and (v) a printout of the first 100 records in
the report format. A record layout must contain the following information: (i) name of the
field, (ii) starting and ending position in the record, (iii) length of the field, and (iv)
characteristics of the field (e.g., packed decimal, zoned decimal, alphanumeric). See TEX.
R. Civ. P. 196.4.

Please seasonably and promptly supplement your responses to all of these discovery
requests as this action continues, to the full extent required by Tex. R. Civ, P. 193.

This request is directed to all documents in your possession, custody or control, or over
which you have a greater right of control than Plaintiff.

19 Unless otherwise specified, these requests are limited to seeking information five (5) years
prior to the date of the Occurrence until the present.

il If you withhold any information under a claim of privilege, please provide us with a
privilege log in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

12 Time Period: Unless a different time period is specifically defined in a request below,
these requests seek information during the period January 1, 2015 through the present.

Page § of 67

EXHIBIT A
we
DEFINITIONS

You shall utilize the following definitions when responding to these Requests:

1 “You,” “your,” or “GHA” means Defendant Greer, Herz, & Adams, LLP, its agents,
employees, representatives, attorneys, support staff, and its litigation counsel.

“Identify” or “identity” when referring:
.
{a) to a “person * means to state the full name of the person, any aliases and/or nicknames
by which the person is now known or has been known in the past, a present and/or last
known address, telephone number, dates of birth, social security number, drivers’
license number, title or position, and place of employment and, if previously or
presently employed by you, the dates he or she was hired and the dates he or she was
terminated or left your employ, if applicable,

(b) to a “document”
RIS means, if a legible copy of the document is not provided with your
answer, a complete description of the document referred to, including its title, if it has
any, the dates it was prepared, the name of the person who prepared it, and the identity
of the person or persons who have custody off control over, or access to such
document;

(c) to “any other matter” means to give a reasonable, detailed description thereof,
including if applicable, for a tangible matter: when, where and how it was made, and
to identify who made it and who has present or last known possession, custody or
control thereof, and

(a) if referring to other Jawsuits or other actions of any type in any court, means stating
separately for each such action: the identity of all parties; the court and cause
number, the dates on which such action was initiated; the identity of opposing
attorneys; the outcome of the case, including in each such action the description of
any judgment or other relief granted in each such action; and, if a civil action, the
nature of the cause of action.
“Plaintiff” refers to Robert L. Moody, Jr.

“Buddy Herz” or “Herz” refers to Defendant Irwin “Buddy” Herz, Jr, including his
attorneys, agents, employees, and/or partners.

“Statements” include any written, videotaped, or audiotaped statements.

The term “communication” means any and all statements, discussions, conversations,
representations, invoices, guaranties, letters, telefaxes, facsimiles, telexes, business or legal
documents, electronic mail, applications, telephone calls, or other written or verbal
communications, whether in person, by telephone, by mail, e-mail or otherwise, between the
persons named in reference to such communications, regardless of by whom said
communications were initiated, and includes all responses to said communications.

Page 6 of 67
EXHIBIT A
me
7
“And” or “or” shall mean “and/or” so as to be inclusive rather than exclusive in meaning

As used herein, the term “document” or “documents” is used in its broadest permissible
sense consistent with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and refers to all writings, files or
other items in your custody, possession, or control or known to you, whether printed,
recorded, preserved or reproduced by any process, or written or produced by hand, and
whether or not claimed to be privileged or exempt from production for any reason,
including, but not limited to, letters, reports, agreements, opinions, estimates, calendars,
communications (including “E-mail” and “voice mail”), correspondence, telegrams,
memoranda, computer files, summaries or records of personal conversations, diaries,
forecasts, photographs, tape recordings, models, statistical statements, graphs, laboratory
and engineering reports, reports of meetings, minutes, or records of conferences, lists of
persons attending meetings conferences, reports or summaries of interviews, reports of
consultants, appraisals, records, reports or summaries of negotiations, brochures,
pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, trade letters, press releases, drafts of any documents,
revisions of drafts of any documents, purchase orders, invoices, records of receipts of
original documents, marginal notes, or preliminary notes. Any comment or notation
appearing on any documents not part of the original text is to be considered a separate
“document.” “Documents” specifically includes information that exists in electronic or
magnetic form. Such electronic or magnetic documents should be produced in hard copy
and/or via disc or tape. “Documents” includes, but is not limited to, any note,
memorandum, correspondence, contract or agreement, pamphlet or manual, computer
print-out, computer tape, tape recording. photograph, photographic negative or
transparency, movie film, videotape recording, CD-ROM, computer disk and every writing
or other graphic material of any kind whatsoever.

9 “Ross Moody” refers to Defendant Ross Rankin Moody.

10 “The Trust” refers to the Three R Trusts created by Robert L. Moody, Sr. in the 1960s
managed by Trustee Irwin “Buddy” Herz and as identified in Plaintiff's Original Petition.
NT
il ional W. stern” refers to National Western Life Insurance Company, now named
National Wester Life Group, Inc., its employees, representatives, officers, directors, board
members, and attorneys.
12“ “ANICO” refers to American National Insurance Company, its employees, representatives,
officers, directors, board members, and attorneys.

13 “Moody Bancshares” refers to Moody Bancshares, Inc., its employees, representatives,
officers, directors, board members, and attorneys

Page 7 of 67
EXHIBIT A
eS
PLAINTIFE’S INTERROGATORY REQUESTS TO DEFENDANT GHA

Identify each person answering these interrogatories, supplying information to these
interrogatories and/or requests for production, or assisting in any way with the preparation
of the answers to these interrogatories and/or requests for production

ANSWER:

Identify the date you anticipated litigation and the factual basis for why you anticipated
litigation on this date.

ANSWER:

2 Identify every legal service (including corporate matters, transactional matters, or litigation
matters), a description of the legal service provided, and the date you performed any such
legal services in Harris County for the following individuals or entities:

a Plaintiff,
b Ross Moody;
Robert L. Moody, Sr.
The Trust;
The Trust’s beneficiaries,
The Moody Endowment;
g Moody National Bank;
Moody Bancshares, Inc.;
ANICO;
National Western,
Regent Care and any Regent Care Entity,
Transition Learning Center;
m The Moody Foundation;
The Robert L. Moody, Sr. Foundation;
Moody Gardens,
Pp National Western Life Insurance Company of New York:
q Farm Family Life Insurance Company;
American National Property and Casualty Company,
$ Moody Medical Research Institute:
Transitional Learning Center,
u Neurorehabilitation Institute;
Vv Regent Management Services or any affiliated Regent Care Center,

ANSWER:

4 Identify any assets and/or property of the Trust located or managed in Harris County in the
last seven years, including answering the following subparts:

a. Identify every bank branch and its address where Trust money is deposited or held
in Harris County;

Page 8 of 67

EXHIBIT A
tS
Identify every brokerage firm, the names of any financial advisors at such firms,
and the address of any brokerage firm located in Harris County where Trust cash
and securities are managed and/or invested;
c identify any Regent Care entity located in Harris County;
identify the names and addresses of any GHA partners who reside in Harris County
and has performed legal services for any Moody-related entity;
Identify any lawsuits filed in Harris County involving any of the Trust’s assets;
Identify the names and addresses for any property owned and/or controlled by the
Trust that is located in Harris County,
Identify the name and address of any beneficiaries of the Trust who reside in Harris
County, Texas;
h Identify the location of each and every place where you have transacted business
on behalf of the Trust in Harris County, Texas.
Identify any entity located in Harris County who have received charitable
contributions from any asset owned and/or controlled by the Trust;
identify any offices (including a home office) in Harris County, Texas that you use
to perform your duties as Trustee of the Trust;
Identify any offices (including a home office) in Harris County, Texas that you use
to provide legal services to any Moody-related entity;
Identify the address of any Moody National Bank Branch in Harris County;
m Identify any Moody-related charitable event and the dates of each event that has
occurred in Harris County in the last five years,
n Identify the dates of any meetings of the beneficiaries has occurred in Harris County
in the last five years.

ANSWER:

5 Identify any waiver of any conflicts of interest and the date you obtained any such waiver
as counsel from any of the following entities in the last seven years:

Plaintiff,
Ross Moody;
Robert L. Moody, Sr.
The Trust;
The Trust’s beneficiaries,
The Endowment:
Moody National Bank;
Moody Bancshares, Inc.;
ANICO;:
National Western;
National Western of New York;
Regent Care and any Regent Care Entity
Transition Leaming Center;
Th The Moody Foundation,
oO. The Robert L. Moody, Sr. Foundation;
Moody Gardens,
Frances Moody-Dahlberg; and

Page 9 of 67

EXHIBIT A
te
r Russell Moody

ANSWER:

6. Identify separately by year and entity the total dollar amount of legal fees collected by
GHA in the years 2013-2020 from the following individuals or entities:

Plaintiff,
Ross Moody:
Robert L. Moody, Sr.
The Trust;
e The Trust’s beneficiaries,
The Moody Endowment;
Moody National Bank;
Moody Bancshares, Inc.;
ANICO;
National Western,
Regent Care and any Regent Care Entity,
Transition Learning Center,
m The Moody Foundation;
The Robert L. Moody, Sr. Foundation,
Moody Gardens;
National Western Life Insurance Company of New York;
Farm Family Life Insurance Company;
American National Property and Casualty Company;
Moody Medical Research Institute:
Transitional Learning Center,
Neurorehabilitation Institute;
Vv Regent Management Services or any affiliated Regent Care Center,
Ww Russell Moody, and
Frances Moody-Dahlberg.

ANSWER:

T. Identify every legal matter GHA has represented Plaintiff or an entity owned and/or
controlled by Plaintiff in the last seven years, including following subparts:

A description of every legal matter GHA has represented Plaintiff or an entity
owned by Plaintiff;
The year and month GHA began representing Plaintiff in each legal matte

Case Info

Judge

Jones, Jeth Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 20, 2020

Case Filing Date

October 20, 2020

County

Parties

Anthony G Buzbee Attorney for the Plaintiff
Herz, Irwin "Buddy" Appellee
Herz, Irwin "Buddy" Defendant
Herz, Irwin "Buddy" Trustee
Moody, Robert L, Jr. Appellant
Moody, Robert L, Jr. Plaintiff
Robin C. Gibbs Attorney
Robin C. Gibbs Attorney for the Appellee
Robin C. Gibbs Attorney for the Defendant
Three R Trusts Defendant
Ross MacDonald Attorney
David Bergen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Daniel Attorneys for Defendants
Hannah Roblyer Attorneys for Defendants
David Beck Attorneys for Defendants
Allison Miller Attorneys for Defendants
Samuel Cruse Attorneys for Defendants
Angus Dodson Attorney
Harry Reasoner Attorney
Stacey Vu Attorneys for Defendants
Brittany Ifejika Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Conor McEvily Attorney
Page Robinson Attorneys for Defendants
Shelby Hart-Armstrong Attorneys for Defendants
William George Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephen Lewis Attorney
Michael Martin Attorney
Richard Schwartz Attorney
Thomas Wilson Attorney
Tara Porterfield Attorney
Gary Johnson Attorneys for Defendants
Alton Todd Attorney
Stephanie Noble Attorney
Michael Leblanc Attorneys for Defendants
Frederick Black Attorneys for Defendants
John Malesovas Attorney
Kristin Brown Attorney
Philip Roberts Attorney
Ethan Baker Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Robert L Moody, Jr. vs. Greer, Herz, & Adams, LLP, Et Al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties