### NO. 01-15-________-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON



### In re: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Relator.

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY DURING PENDENCY OF MANDAMUS ( Seeking Relief by 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 28 )

H AYNES AND B OONE , LLP

Kent Rutter State Bar No. 00797364 Christina Crozier State Bar No. 24050466 Andrew Guthrie State Bar No. 24078606 1221 McKinney, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77010-2007 Telephone: (713) 547-2000 Telecopier: (713) 547-2600 Kent.Rutter@haynesboone.com Christina.Crozier@haynesboone.com Andrew.Guthrie@haynesboone.com K ANE R USSELL C OLEMAN & L OGAN PC Marcy Lynn Rothman State Bar No. 17318500 M. Daniel Guerra State Bar No. 00793865 5051 Westheimer Road, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7444 Telecopier: (713) 425-7700 MRothman@krcl.com DGuerra@krcl.com



### A TTORNEYS FOR 

### R ELATOR 

### , U NION 

### P ACIFIC 

### R AILROAD 

### C OMPANY ACCEPTED 01-15-00918-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/27/2015 4:57:39 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Contem poraneously with thi s motion, Relator Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) is filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Union Pacific seeks relief from the trial court’s order compelling the “immediate” production of attorney-client communications. ( See MR:264-65; App. A. 1 

### ) Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, Union Pacific files this emergency motion a nd asks this Court to stay the trial court’s order while its Petition for Writ of Mandamus is pending before this Court. Union Pacific respectfully requests relief on this motion no later 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 28 because the order requires “immediate” compliance and because Defendant Jeremy Hampton is set to be deposed two hours later, at 1:00 p.m. on October 28. Union Pacific has attempted to obtain the Trichels’ consent to a short stay while this Court considers this motion, but the Trichels did not respond. (App. C.)

1 Union Pacific learned of the trial court’ s ruling during a phone call with the clerk around lunchtime on October 27, 2015. (MR:264.) The call e nded with instructions that the Trichels submit a proposed order, which is attached as Appendix Tab A. (MR.265.) Union Pacific will file a supplement to the Mandamus Record as soon as it receives the signed order, but files this motion and petition now given the C ourt’s order for immediate production.

### BA CKGROUND I. The underlying case arises from a vehicular accident. The underlying case arises out of a collision that occurred on April 15, 2014, between a Ford Mustang driven by Nicholas Trichel and a tractor-trailer rig leased by Union Pacific and driven by Jeremy Ray Hampton. (MR:1-2. 2 

### ) Trichel suffered significant injuries in the accident. (MR:2.) Nicholas Trichel’s parents, Donald and Mary Trichel, filed the underlying laws uit, alleging that Hampton and Union Pacific were negligent, gro ssly negligent, and negligent per se . (MR:1, 3-4.)

II. Union Pacific immediately engaged outside counsel to conduct interviews and provide legal advice about possible litigation. On the day of the accident, Union P acific engaged Marcy Rothman of the law firm Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC to provide legal advice in connection with the accident. (MR:120.) Given the na ture of the incident, Union Pacific already anticipated a possible lawsuit. (MR:108, 115-16.) 3 

### In fact, two of its employees—Hampton and James Wilson (w ho was driving along in another tractor-trailer)—had either been issued citations at the scene or read their Miranda rights by Corporal James Talbert. (MR: 108, 120.) Rothman wa s therefore engaged

2 Union Pacific will cite to the Appendix as (App. [Tab #]) and the Mandamus Record as (MR:[page]). 3 This belief was confirmed when Union Pacifi c received a letter—dated two days after the accident—in which the Trichels noted thei r intent to pursue litigation. (MR:113.)

### by Union Pacific to provi de legal advice for issues arising out of the accident , including possible criminal charges. (MR:120.) Two days later, Rothman met with Hampton and Wilson to discuss the accident so that she could better understand their impressions of how it occurred. (MR:115-16, 120.) Rothman was joined by Wil liam J. Green, Director of Claims for Union Pacific, who was assisting in the investigation as a representative of Union Pacific’s in-house counsel. (MR:115- 16, 120.) Rothman directed Green to take the lead in conducting the intervie ws, asking Hampton and Wilson to provide their accounts of the events surrounding th e accident in her pr esence so that she

could hear their first-hand recollecti ons. (MR:115-16, 120.) Green also tape recorded the interviews. (MR:115.) Recently, in the course of preparing fo r his deposition, Green realized that the recorded interviews had never been provided to Rothman, Union Pacific’s litigation counsel. 4 

### (MR:115-16.) He notified Roth man and provided her with a copy of the statements on October 20, 2015. (MR:115-16.) Two days later, out of an abundance of caution and a show of g ood faith, Rothman voluntarily disclosed

the existence of the recorded interviews to counsel for the Trichels, asserted that

4 Initially, Rothman was engaged to represen t Union Pacific and its employees (including Hampton and possibly Wilson) in connection with any possible litigatio n arising out of the accident. (MR:115, 120.) However, Hampton has si nce engaged separate counsel and Wilson was not sued; Rothman now represents only Union Pacific.

### they were privilege d, and produced a supplem ental privilege log. (MR:122, 124- 27.)

III. The trial court ruled that the rec orded interviews between Union Pacific’s employees and its litigatio n counsel were not privileged and ordered them immedi ately disclosed. At a hearing on October 23, 2015, the Tr ichels demanded that Union Pacific produce the recorded interviews. (MR:264; Supp.MR. 5 

### ) While they argued that the interviews were not protected by the atto rney-client privilege, they also lobbed allegations that Union Pacific had intent ionally concealed the recordings—despite

the fact that Union Pacific voluntarily disclosed their existence immediately after the recordings were brought to the a ttention of its counsel. (Supp.MR; MR:128;

see also MR:115-16, 124-27.) Union Pacific resisted the demand for production. It argued that the statements are unquesti onably privileged as confidential communications between and among Union Pacific employees and its outside litigation counsel that occurred in anticip ation of this very litigation. (MR:43.) Moreover, Union Pacific argued that it had no duty to notify the Trichels about the existence of the interviews in the first pla ce, but did so in good faith and out of an abundance of caution. (MR:43.)

5 The transcript from the October 23, 2015 hear ing is not yet available, but Union Pacific intends to file a supplement to the mandamus record as soon as it receives the transcript. For the time being, Union Pacific will referen ce that transcript as “Supp.MR.”

### Judge Kyl e Carter asked to review a tr anscript of the recorded interviews in

camera . (MR:264; Supp.MR) After doing so, and hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court ruled on October 27, 2015 that the statements should be immediately produced. ( See MR:264-65; App. A.)

Because the recorded interv iews are, in fact, privileged, Union Pacific is filing a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court to correct this abuse of discretion. Union Pacific previously reques ted a stay of the trial court’s ruling for seven days so that it could pursue mandamus relief with this Court, but the trial court did not grant that request. (MR:49, 264-65; see App. A.) He ordered Union Pacific to produce the statements “imme diately.” (MR:264-65; App. A.) Union Pacific therefore files this emergency moti on, asking this Court to stay the trial court’s ruling to prevent the production of these privileged recordings and transcripts before this Court is able to consider the mandamus petition. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the immediate production of the recorded interv iews, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Put simply, the recorded interviews are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the trial court had no basis to conclude otherwis e. Texas Rule of Evidence 503 defines the scope of the attorn ey-client privilege. Under that rule, a client has the right to protect from di sclosure “confidential communications made

### for the purposes of facilitating the re nditi on of professional legal services,” including communications: (i) between a representative of the client and the client’s lawyer; and (ii) between representatives of the client. See T EX



### . R. E VID



### . 503(b)(1)(A), (D). The recorded inte rviews with Hampton and Wilson are therefore privileged because they involved confidential communications between Union Pacific’s lawyer (Rothman) and its representatives (G reen, Hampton, and Wilson). Rule 503 defines a “representative of the client” in two different ways, both of which apply in this case. See T EX



### . R. E VID 

### . 503(a)(2). Green qualified as a representative under Subsection 2(A), which includes any “person having authority to obtain professional legal services, or to act on advice thereby rendered, on

behalf of the client.” T EX



### . R. E VID 

### . 503(a)(2)(A). Hampton and Wilson qualified as representatives under Subsection 2(B), which includes “any other person who, for the purpose of effectuating legal representation for the client, makes or receives a

confidential communication while acti ng in the scope of employment for the

client.” T EX



### . R. E VID 

### . 503(a)(2)(B). Because Hampton and Wilson were providing information about the performance of their job duties to their employer’s counsel—for the purposes of facilitating he r legal advice to the company—they were Union Pacific’s “representativ es” for purposes of the interview. See In re USA Waste Mgmt. Res., LLC , 387 S.W.3d 92, 96 (Tex . App.—Houston [14 th 

### Dist.]

### 2012, orig. proceeding). Theref ore, the re corded conversations are privileged under Rules 503(b)(1)(A)—communi cations between a represen tative of the client and the client’s lawyer—and 503(b)(1)(D)—co mmunications between representatives

of the client. The Trichels’ strained arguments to overcome that privilege all fail. First , that the interviews may be described as “witness statements” changes nothing because such statements are subject to th e same rules of privilege as any other

document. T EX



### . R. C IV



### . P. 192.3, cmt. 9. Second , it makes no difference that the interviews largely consisted of the r ecitation of factual information—if a

confidential communication is made fo r the purposes of legal advice, it is privileged even if it does not involve explicit legal advice. See In re Park Cities

Bank , 409 S.W.3d 859, 868 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, orig. proceeding). Third , the crime-fraud exception does not apply because the Trichels have no evidence—or allegations, for that matter—that Rothman’ s services were sought for the purposes of enabling a crime or fraud (and there was no fraud in the first place). T EX



### . R.

E VID 

### . 503(d)(1); In re AEP Tex. Central Co. , 128 S.W.3d 687, 692 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). Finally , Union Pacific did not waive the privilege by disclosing the existence of the recorded interviews when it did because Union Pacific had no obligation to te ll the Trichels about the recordings at any point. T EX



### . R. C IV



### . P. 193.3(c).

### In short, the recorded interviews are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the trial court abused its discretion in ordering t heir immediate

disclosure.

B. A stay of the trial court’s order is necessary to preserve the privilege while the mandamus is pending. Union Pacific’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus concerns a proper and wellaccepted ground for mandamus relief, one that leaves it with no adequate remedy on appeal. Once a party has erroneousl y been required to produce privileged information, the bell cannot be unrung. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992) (acknowledging that af ter privileged documents have “been inspected, examined and reproduced . . . a holding that the court had erroneously issued the order [compelling production] would be of sma ll comfort to relators in protecting their papers”). For this reason, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “appeal is inadequate when a trial court erroneously orders the production of confidential information or privileged documents.” In re Ford Motor Co. , 211 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re the University of Tex. Health Ctr. , 33 S.W.3d 822, 827 (Tex. 2001)); see also In re Matthew Arden , 2004 WL 576064 at *4 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding) (appeal is not adequate where the trial court has erroneously or dered the disclosure of priv ileged information because “an appellate court w ould be unable to cure such error”).

### For the same reasons, this Court should stay the trial court’s order requiring

immediat e disclosure of the r ecorded stat ements so that this Court can properly consider the mandamus petition. (MR:264- 65; App. A.) The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically authori ze “a motion to stay any underlying proceedings or for any other temporar y relief pending the court’s action on the [mandamus] petition.” T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 52.10(a). Such orders serve the purpose of protecting the appellate court’s jurisdiction so that it can consider the merits of the

mandamus action. See, e.g. , In re Reed , 901 S.W.2d 604, 609 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). There is perhaps no area where this ru le is more necessary than with an erroneous order to immediately disclose privileged materials. As noted above, if Union Pacific is forced to disclose the recorded interviews “immediately,” the privilege over those communica tions will forever be lost. Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 843; Arden , 2004 WL 576064, at *4. Therefor e, the only way that mandamus provides a meaningful remedy is if this Court prevents the disclosure of the privileged communications for at least as long as it takes to resolve the mandamus petition. See, e.g. , In re Kelleher , 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (stay is ap propriate to afford the appe llate court “the opportunity to address the dispute encompassed with in a petition for mandamus (for instance) by maintaining the status quo until it can address that dispute”).

### CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Accordingly, to give this Court the opportunity to review Union Pacific’s

Petition for Writ of Mandamus before it is forced to immediately produce the privileged co mmunications, Union Pacific respectfully requests that this Court: (1) stay the trial court’s order requiring the production of the recorded interviews, and (2) order any and all fu rther relief to which Union Pacific may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter State Bar No. 00797364 Christina Crozier State Bar No. 24050466 Andrew Guthrie State Bar No. 24078606 1221 McKinney, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77010-2007 Telephone: (713) 547-2000 Telecopier: (713) 547-2600 Kent.Rutter@haynesboone.com Christina.Crozier@haynesboone.com Andrew.Guthrie@haynesboone.com

### KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN PC Marcy Lynn Rothman State Bar No. 17318500 M. Daniel Guerra State Bar No. 00793865 5051 Westheimer Road, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7444 Telecopier: (713) 425-7700 MRothman@krcl.com DGuerra@krcl.com

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

### CERTIF ICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that counsel for Union Pacific made a reasonable a ttempt to confer with Vuk Vujasinovic, counsel for the Tric hels, concerning this request. However, Union Pacific had not received a response at the time of this filing. Counsel for Union Pacific also conferred with Wilson Aurbach, counsel for Hampton, concerning this request. Mr. Aurbach does not oppose the relief requested.

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter

### CERTIF ICATE OF SERVICE In accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this emergency motion has been served on Respondent and the following couns el of record via e-service on this 27th day of October, 2015: Respondent: Honorable Kyle Carter 125th District Court 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Counsel for Real Parties in Intere st, Donald and Mary Trichel, Individually and as Next Friends of Nicholas Trichel: Vuk S. Vujasinovic Brian Beckcom VB A TTORNEYS 

### , PLLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77057 Dale Jefferson Levon Hovnatanian M ARTIN 

### , D ISIERE 

### , J EFFERSON 

### & W ISDOM 

### Niels Esperson Building 808 Travis, 20th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Counsel for Real Party in Inte rest Jeremy Ray Hampton: Adolfo R. Rodriguez, Jr. Wilson C. Aurbach Christopher K. Rusek R ODRIGUEZ 

### L AW 

### F IRM 

### , P.C. 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3850 Dallas, Texas 75201

/s/ Kent Rutter Kent Rutter

### APPENDIX Tab A — October 27, 2015 letter from Ke nneth Fenelon, counsel for the Trichels, attaching proposed order

Tab B — Texas Rule of Evidence 503 Tab C — October 27, 2015 email fro m Marcy Lynn Rothman, counsel for Union Pacific requesting for th e Trichels’ consent to a short stay

# T AB 

# A October 27, 2015 letter from Kenneth Fenelon, counsel for the Trichels, attaching proposed orderOctober 27, 2015

Attn: Bridgett Stanfield Court Coordinator for the 125 th District Court 201 Caroline Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Cause No. 2014

- 23177, Trichel vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., In the 125 th District Court, Harris County, Texas Proposed Order

Dear Mrs. Stanfield : Please find attached the proposed order requested by the C ourt earlier today during the conference call set by the Court

. Sincerely,

/s/ Kenneth Fenelon VB Attorneys Attorney for Plaintiffs



### Certificate of Service : 

### The undersigned authority hereby certifies th at a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been electronically served upon all counsel of record via email through the Court’s electronic filing system on 27 th day of October 2015. /s/ Kenneth Fenelon

___________________________________ Kenneth FenelonCause No. 2014-23177

Donald And Mary Trichel, Individually § In The District Court Of And As Next Friends Of Nicholas Trichel § § Vs. § Harris County, Texas § Union Pacific Railroad Company and § Jeremy Ray Hampton § 125 th Judicial District Order On this day came on for consideration the discoverability of the recorded witness statements of Jeremy Ray Hampton and James Wilson and Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s Brief in Opposition to Production of Employee Statements and Conditional Motion to Stay, The Trichels’ Brief in Support of the Discoverability of the Statements of Hampton and Wilson, The Trichels’ Supplement to Brief in Support of the Discoverability of the Statements of Hampton and Wilson, and Defendant Jeremy Hamptons Response to Trichels’ Supplement to Brief in Support of the Discoverability of the Statements of Hampton and Wilson , and the Court, having read the briefs of counsel, heard arguments of counsel, and having conducted an in camera review of the recorded witness statements, is of the opinion that the witness statements are discoverable and must be produced. All objections and/or privileges raised by Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Jeremy Hampton are overruled and all relief requested by Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Jeremy Hampton is denied. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Jeremy Hampton produce the actual audio recordings of both statements and a copy of the transcription of both statements immediately. Signed __________________, 2015.

______________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING 10/27/2015 12:48:31 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 7557502 By: MELISSA TORRES Filed: 10/27/2015 12:48:31 PM

# T AB 

# B T EX



## . R. E VID



## . 503Rule 503. Lawye r -Client Privilege, TX R EVID Rule 503

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Vernon’s Texas Rules Annotated Texas Rules of Evidence (Refs & Annos) Article V. Privileges (Refs & Annos) TX Rules of Evidence, Rule 503 Rule 503. Lawyer-Client Privilege

Currentness (a) Definitions. In this rule: (1) A “client” is a person, public officer, or corporation, asso ciation, or other organization or entity--whether public or private--that: (A) is rendered professional le gal services by a lawyer; or (B) consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer. (2) A “client’s representative” is:

(A) a person who has authority to obtain professional legal serv ices for the client or to act for the client on the legal advice rendered; or (B) any other person who, to facilitate th e rendition of professional legal servi ces to the client, makes or receives a confidential communication while acting in the scope of employment for the client. (3) A “lawyer” is a person authorized, or who the client reasonably believes is authorized, to practice law in any state or nation. (4) A “lawyer’s representative” is:

(A) one employed by the lawyer to assist in the rendition of professional legal services; or (B) an accountant who is reasonably necessary for the lawyer’s rendition of professional legal services. (5) A communication is “confidential” if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those:

(A) to whom disclosure is made to further the renditio n of professional legal services to the client; or (B) reasonably necessary to transmit the communication. (b) Rules of Privilege. (1) General Rule . A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made to facilitate the rendition of professional legal services to the client: (A) between the client or the client’s representative and the client’s lawy er or the lawyer’s representative; (B) between the client’s lawyer an d the lawyer’s representative; (C) by the client, the client’s representative, the client’s la wyer, or the lawyer’s represen tative to a lawyer representing another party in a pending action or that lawyer’s representative, if the communications concern a matter of common interest in the pending action; (D) between the client’s representatives or between the client and the client’s representative; orRule 503. Lawye r -Client Privilege, TX R EVID Rule 503

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 (E) among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client. (2) Special Rule in a Criminal Case . In a criminal case, a client has a priv ilege to prevent a lawyer or lawyer’s representative from disclosing any other fact that came to th e knowledge of the lawyer or the lawyer’s representative by reason of the attorney-client relationship. (c) Who May Claim. The privilege may be claimed by: (1) the client; (2) the client’s guardian or conservator; (3) a deceased client’s personal representative; or (4) the successor, trustee, or similar representative of a corpora tion, association, or other organization or entity--whether or not in existence.

The person who was the client’s lawyer or the lawyer’s representative when the communication was made may claim the privilege on the client’s behalf--and is presumed to have authority to do so. (d) Exceptions. This privilege does not apply: (1) Furtherance of Crime or Fraud . If the lawyer’s services were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud. (2) Claimants Through Same Deceased Client . If the communication is relevant to an issue between parties claiming through the same deceased client. (3) Breach of Duty By a Lawyer or Client . If the communication is relevant to an issue of breach of duty by a lawyer to the client or by a client to the lawyer. (4) Document Attested By a Lawyer . If the communication is relevant to an is sue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness. (5) Joint Clients . If the communication:

(A) is offered in an action between clients who retained or consulted a lawyer in common; (B) was made by any of the clients to the lawyer; and (C) is relevant to a matter of common interest between the clients. Credits Eff. March 1, 1998. Amended by orders of Supreme Court March 10, 2015 and Court of Criminal Appeals March 12, 2015, eff. April 1, 2015. Editors’ Notes NOTES AND COMMENTS Comment to 1998 change: The addition of subsection (a)(2)(B) adopts a subject matter test for the privilege of an entity, in place of the control group test previously used. See National Tank Co. v. Brotherton , 851 S.W.2d 193, 197-198 (Tex. 1993)

. Notes of Decisions (424)Rule 503. Lawye r -Client Privilege, TX R EVID Rule 503

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Rules of Evid., Rule 503, TX R EVID Rule 503 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and Rules of Appellate Procedure are curre nt with amendments received through September 1, 2015. Bar Rules, Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Code of Judicial Conduct, and Rules of Judicial Administration are current with amendments received through September 1, 2015. Othe r state court rules an d selected county rules are current with rules verified through June 1, 2015. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

# T AB 

# C October 27, 2015 email from Marcy Lynn Rothman, counsel for Union Pacific requesting for the Trichels’ consent to a short stay1 Meuhlen, Michelle

From: Marcy L. Rothman <mrothman@krcl.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:56 AM To: Vuk Vujasinovic Cc: Brian Beckcom; Kenneth Fenelo n; Rutter, Kent; Daniel Guerra; jr@therodriguezfirm.com; waurbach@therodriguezfirm.com Subject: Trichel/court order to produce the statements of Hampton and Wilson [IWOViManage.FID1386185]

Vuk

–

We will be filing a mandamus petition and a motion to stay in the court of appeals as soon as Judge Carter enters his order. Will you agree to a 24

‐ hour stay of the order, or a stay of a different duration, to give the court of appeals a reasonable opportunity to rule on our stay request?

Thanks. Marcy

MARCY L. ROTHMAN , Attorney at Law KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN PC 5051 Westheimer Road • 10th Floor • Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone (713) 425-7444 • Cell (713) 819-7652 • Facsimile (713) 425-7700 mrothman@krcl.com • www.krcl.com • www.krclblogs.com The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individua l or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, then you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr ibution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, then do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and delete it. Thank you.

From: Vuk Vujasinovic [mailto:vuk@vbattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:45 AM To: Marcy L. Rothman; Daniel Guerra; jr@therodriguezfirm.com ; waurbach@therodriguezfirm.com Cc: Brian Beckcom; Kenneth Fenelon Subject: Court order to produce the statements of Hampton and Wilson

We all just got off the phone with the Court where you were ordered to immediately produce the statements of Hampton and Wilson. Please immediately email us a copy of the transcripts of both statements, and immediately also provide us a copy of the audio of both statements. Thank you.

--2 Vuk Stevan Vujasinovic Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization VB Attorneys Website

Check us out on Facebook

VB Attorneys 6363 Woodway, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77057 (713) 224-7800 (713) 224-7801 - fax (877) 724-7800 - toll free