On April 03, 2014 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Russo, Jeff,
and
M-I L L C,
M-I Swaco,
National Oilwell Varco, Lp,
for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
M-I L.L.C. D/B/A M-I SWACO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
JEFF RUSSO AND NATIONAL
OILWELL VARCO, L.P.,
189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION TO DISREGARD CERTAIN JURY ANSWERS, MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
M-I L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO (“M-I SWACO”) files its Objections to and Motion to Strike
Certain Documents Submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion to Disregard Certain Jury
Entry of Judgment, and Motion for Sanctions:
Declaration of John Zavitsanos and Attachments
The Declaration of John Zavitsanos, and its attachments, are untimely and should be
disregarded by the Court pursuant to Rule 270 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The issue of
attorney’s fees was controverted in this case of testimony by
attorney’s fees experts on the issue before the Jury. Mr. Zavitsanos testified and was cross examined
“[I]n a jury case no evidence on a controversial matter shall be received after the verdict
of the jury.” See Genender v. USA Store Fixtures, LLC, 451 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. App.—Houston
Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (reversing a trial court’s decision to allow an affidavit on attorneys’
fees after a jury verdict where the underlying claim was a “controverted” matter);
of Texas at Austin v. Ables , no writ) (reversing the
trial court’s decision to consider an affidavit attached to a post-trial motion requesting attorneys’
fees where the jury already rendered a verdict, the court accepted the verdict, and there was no
separate trial of any claim or issue), cited favorably in Hatfield v. Solomon
Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (applying the reasoning in to disallow
evidence after the jury verdict).
As such, the Declaration of John Zavitsanos should be stricken in its entirety and
Exhibits Q through V
Exhibits Q through U include purported filings in other unrelated cases. For the reasons set
forth in M-I SWACO’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, these documents are
irrelevant to any issue in dispute in this case. T ts Q through S and
U through V are not properly authenticated under Rules 901 or 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
Exhibits Q, U, and V also include hearsay wit VID. 801-803. As
Exhibit X
Exhibit W includes hear VID. 801-803. As such, it should be
e Court.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, M-I L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO respectfully
requests that the Court sustain M-I SWACO’s objections to these documents, strike the same, and
disregard the same for purposes of ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Disregard Certain Jury Answers,
Motion for Entry of Judgment, and Motion for Sanctions. M-I SWACO further requests that the
Court grant it such further and other relief, both general and specific, at law and in equity, to which it
Dated: March 23, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward L. Friedman
Edward L. Friedman
State Bar No. 07462950
efriedman@bakerlaw.com
Cody T. Vasut
State Bar No. 24084012
cvasut@bakerlaw.com
Kelline R. Linton
State Bar No. 24085436
klinton@bakerlaw.com
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 751-1600 (Telephone)
(713) 751-1717 (Facsimile)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Michelle D. Pector
State Bar No. 24027726
michelle.pector@morganlewis.com
(713) 890-5001 (Facsimile)
COUNSEL FOR M-I L.L.C., D/B/A/ M-I
SWACO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 23, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on
counsel of record via e-mail in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
jzavitsanos@azalaw.com
Elizabeth Pannill Fletcher
nsarkar@azalaw.com
Kelsi Stayart
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
/s/ Edward L. Friedman
Edward L. Friedman
Document Filed Date
March 23, 2017
Case Filing Date
April 03, 2014
Category
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
M-I L.L.C. D/B/A M-I SWACO, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS JEFF RUSSO AND NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISREGARD CERTAIN JURY ANSWERS, MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS M-I L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO (“M-I SWACO”) files its Objections to and Motion to Strike Certain Documents Submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion to Disregard Certain Jury Entry of Judgment, and Motion for Sanctions: Declaration of John Zavitsanos and Attachments The Declaration of John Zavitsanos, and its attachments, are untimely and should be disregarded by the Court pursuant to Rule 270 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The issue of attorney’s fees was controverted in this case of testimony by attorney’s fees experts on the issue before the Jury. Mr. Zavitsanos testified and was cross examined “[I]n a jury case no evidence on a controversial matter shall be received after the verdict of the jury.” See Genender v. USA Store Fixtures, LLC, 451 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. App.—Houston Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (reversing a trial court’s decision to allow an affidavit on attorneys’ fees after a jury verdict where the underlying claim was a “controverted” matter); of Texas at Austin v. Ables , no writ) (reversing the trial court’s decision to consider an affidavit attached to a post-trial motion requesting attorneys’ fees where the jury already rendered a verdict, the court accepted the verdict, and there was no separate trial of any claim or issue), cited favorably in Hatfield v. Solomon Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (applying the reasoning in to disallow evidence after the jury verdict). As such, the Declaration of John Zavitsanos should be stricken in its entirety and Exhibits Q through V Exhibits Q through U include purported filings in other unrelated cases. For the reasons set forth in M-I SWACO’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, these documents are irrelevant to any issue in dispute in this case. T ts Q through S and U through V are not properly authenticated under Rules 901 or 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Exhibits Q, U, and V also include hearsay wit VID. 801-803. As Exhibit X Exhibit W includes hear VID. 801-803. As such, it should be e Court. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, M-I L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO respectfully requests that the Court sustain M-I SWACO’s objections to these documents, strike the same, and disregard the same for purposes of ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Disregard Certain Jury Answers, Motion for Entry of Judgment, and Motion for Sanctions. M-I SWACO further requests that the Court grant it such further and other relief, both general and specific, at law and in equity, to which it Dated: March 23, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward L. Friedman Edward L. Friedman State Bar No. 07462950 efriedman@bakerlaw.com Cody T. Vasut State Bar No. 24084012 cvasut@bakerlaw.com Kelline R. Linton State Bar No. 24085436 klinton@bakerlaw.com Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 751-1600 (Telephone) (713) 751-1717 (Facsimile) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Michelle D. Pector State Bar No. 24027726 michelle.pector@morganlewis.com (713) 890-5001 (Facsimile) COUNSEL FOR M-I L.L.C., D/B/A/ M-I SWACO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 23, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record via e-mail in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: jzavitsanos@azalaw.com Elizabeth Pannill Fletcher nsarkar@azalaw.com Kelsi Stayart 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 /s/ Edward L. Friedman Edward L. Friedman