141-307474-19 FILED

TARRANT COUNTY
10/29/2019 1:01 PM
CAUSE NO. 141-307474-19 THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK

VICTOR MIGNOGNA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 141st JUDICIAL DISTRCT
FUNIMATION PRODUCTIONS, LLC, §
MONICA RIAL, RONALD TOYE, and §
JAMIE MARCHI, §
§
Defendants. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH

Defendants Monica Rial and Ronald Toye (“Moving Defendants” or “Rial/Toye”) file this

Motion to Compel Deposition and Documents of Chris Slatosch and respectfully show the Court

as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

MOVING DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT CHRIS SLATOSCH (“SLATOSCH”)

COMMITTED PERJURY IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 BY KNOWINGLY
ASSERTING FALSE ACCUSATIONS THAT DEFENDANTS INTERFERED WITH A
CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF. SEVERAL OF THE ELEMENTS THE COURT EVALUATES
WHEN ASSESSING SANCTIONS ARE RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE , AS ARE ATTEMPTS BY
PLAINTIFF AND/OR HIS AGENTS TO SOLICIT OR COERCE FALSE TESTIMONY.

MR. SLATOSCH IS A NONPARTY, AND ANYTHING COMMUNICATED TO HIM BY

PLAINTIFF OR HIS AGENTS IS NOT SHIELDED UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVILEGE .
TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO SUPPOSED EXPENSE OF THE ANTICIPATED
DISCOVERY, HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ATTEND THE DEPOSITION. SIMPLY PUT,
THE NOTICE OF SUBPOENA IS VALID, REASONABLY RESTRICTED, AND SEEKS
RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE UPCOMING SANCTIONS HEARING SCHEDULED
FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2019.

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 1

Copy from re:SearchTX

 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On October 19, 2019, Moving Defendants began working with Mr. Slatosch to

secure his deposition, but were unable to reach an agreement. 1 Counsel for Moving Defendants

exchanged phone calls and email with Mr. Slatosch, who has never stated that he is represented by

an attorney. 2

2. On October 23, 2019, Moving Defendants served the Notice of Intent to Subpoena

Christopher Slatosch (“Notice of Intent”) on all counsel of record in this matter. 3

3. Plaintiff’s counsel raised no complaints concerning the location or timing of Mr.

Slatosch’s deposition prior to filing the Motion to Quash on October 28, 2019. 4 At the time of

writing, Plaintiff’s counsel still has not proposed an alternative date for the deposition. 5

4. Counsel for Moving Defendants tried, on multiple occasions, to reach an agreement

with Mr. Slatosch to avoid any unnecessary expense for his deposition, including working with

him on the timing of the deposition. 6 Counsel’s most recent attempt to cooperate with Mr. Slatosch

was at 11:03 a.m, on October 28, 2019. 7

5. The noticed deposition is set well within the 150-mile radius for a valid subpoena

under Texas law.

Slatosch residence: 4017 E 37th Street, Odessa, Texas 79762. 8

1
See Affidavit of J. Sean Lemoine (“Lemoine Aff.” attached as Exhibit A) at ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto.
2
Id.
3
See Motion to Quash, at Ex. B.
4
See Lemoine Aff. at ¶ 9.
5
Id.
6
See Lemoine Aff. at ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1.
7
See Lemoine Aff. at ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1. Mr. Slatosch has not contacted the undersigned since October 22, 2019. See
id. at ¶ 8.
8
See Motion to Quash, Ex. B. Mr. Slatosch identifies his home county as Ector County, Texas. See Affidavit of
Christopher Slatosch (without exhibits), attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Slatosch affidavit does not list his address.
However, filings with the Texas comptroller for Silvrfire, LLC (identified as Mr. Slatosch’s company in paragraph 2
of his affidavit) list the above address as the mailing address associated with this entity. See Lemoine Aff. at ¶ 5.

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 2

Copy from re:SearchTX

 Deposition location: 1401 Tradewinds Boulevard, Midland, Texas 79706.

6. Mr. Slatosch’s affidavit testimony (procured and shared with the Court under the

false pretense of being validly notarized) 9 is contradicted by the deposition testimony of Ron

Toye. 10

7. On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Quash.

8. The sanctions hearing is set for November 21, 2019.

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

9. Relevant to the Mr. Slatosch deposition and the upcoming sanctions hearing are

determinations as to whether Plaintiff (a) had bad faith in bringing his claims, and (b) “the degree

of willfulness, vindictiveness, negligence, or frivolousness involved in the offense.” Landry’s, Inc.

v. Animal Legal Def. Fund, 566 S.W.3d 41, 71–74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet.

filed). Moving Defendants are also entitled to a determination of, among other things, Plaintiff’s

and his counsel’s culpability in bringing and prosecuting the dismissed claims, and the strategy of

waging a campaign of harassment in and out of court in furtherance of their frivolous lawsuit. Id.

Although Low addresses sanctions under Chapter 10 of Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, we agree that Low offers guidance in imposing sanctions under
the TCPA. Because the purpose of sanctions under the TCPA is deterrence, the
TCPA resembles Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which
allows a person who signs a frivolous pleading or motion for an improper purpose
to be sanctioned in an amount “limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of
the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 10.004(b). In assessing sanctions under Chapter 10, the trial
court is to consider the following non-exclusive list of factors to the extent that
they are relevant:

a. the good faith or bad faith of the offender;

b. the degree of willfulness, vindictiveness, negligence, or frivolousness

9
See Moving Defendants Joint Response/Cross-Motion to Strike (1) Plaintiff’s Response to the TCPA Motions to
Dismiss, (2) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, and (3) to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Late Response
to Defendants’ TCPA Motions to Dismiss Due to Technical Issues, at pp. 9-13 (asserting that Mr. Slatosch, among
others, was not in the presence of a notary when he executed his affidavit), incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
10
See excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Ron Toye, attached as Exhibit C.

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 3

Copy from re:SearchTX

 involved in the offense;
...
e. the reasonableness and necessity of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred
by the offended person as a result of the misconduct;
f. the nature and extent of prejudice, apart from out-of-pocket expenses,
suffered by the offended person as a result of the misconduct;
g. the relative culpability of client and counsel, and the impact on their
privileged relationship of an inquiry into that area;
….
Id. at 71-72.

10. Moving Defendants believe that Mr. Slatosch will testify concerning several issues

that are directly relevant to the Low factors discussed in Landry’s, Inc. Moving Defendants

anticipate that Mr. Slatosch will testify that he was threatened with a lawsuit following his decision

to retract Plaintiff’s invitation to Kameha Con, that he was threatened with exposure of his personal

information by Plaintiff’s agents (and/or individuals who Plaintiff was aware were operating on

his behalf), and that—prior to this lawsuit—he did not believe that either of the Moving Defendants

interfered with Plaintiff’s contract. Mr. Slatosch will also testify concerning the conduct of

Plaintiff, his counsel, and his agents throughout the litigation, up to and including the fraudulent

affidavit.

11. Moving Defendants ask the Court to overrule Plaintiff’s objection under Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 176.3(a) as inapplicable to the Notice. See Motion to Quash at ¶¶ (1)-(2). The

subpoena attached to the Notice does not compel Mr. Slatosch to appear in a county that is more

than 150 miles from his residence. Moving Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice that

Midland County (the county of the deposition) shares a border with Ector County (the county of

Mr. Slatosch’s residence), and that the border of Midland County is approximately 3.5 miles from

Mr. Slatosch’s residence.

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 4

Copy from re:SearchTX

 12. Moving Defendants also ask the Court to overrule Plaintiff’s objection to time and

place, as Plaintiff fails to offer a reason why the proposed time or place in inconvenient, or to

propose alternatives. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.4. 11

13. The Court should overrule the assertion that Moving Defendants are attempting to

“harass and intimidate a non-party and drive up costs,” as (a) without any merit or evidentiary

support; (b) Plaintiff has no standing to assert such objections for Mr. Slatosch; (c) Mr. Slatosch

voluntarily injected himself into this dispute; and (d) Plaintiff does not have to attend the

deposition if he is seriously concerned about his own costs.

14. The Court should also overrule any assertions that Plaintiff may make asserting Mr.

Slatosch is in possession of, or may testify concerning, matters or materials protected by attorney-

client privilege or the work-product doctrine. 12 Considering Mr. Slatosch is not a party to this

dispute, his communications with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, or anyone else purporting to

represent Plaintiff are not privileged, and the inclusion of Mr. Slatosch in such communications

waived any protections that may have been arguably applicable. See Tex. R. Evid. 503(b) and/or

511(a).

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the Moving Defendants respectfully request the Court grant an

Order as follows:

1) Overruling the Motion to Quash, denying the protective order, and ordering the
deposition and document production to proceed prior to November 8, 2019; and

11
This also answers the complaint made by Plaintiff’s counsel that he was not consulted about dates or times. Mr.
Beard had five (5) days in which to suggest alternative dates, and did not raise this issue until the Motion to Quash.
Moving Defendants counter that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash was filed (not so mysteriously) just hours after
Defendants’ counsel once again sought to work with Mr. Slatosch on the deposition date. Compare Lemoine Aff.
Exhibit 1 with Exhibit 2.
12
See Lemoine Aff., Exhibit 2 (“In addition, the subpoena duces tecum asks for privileged information.”).

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 5

Copy from re:SearchTX

 2) Award Moving Defendants such other and further relief to which they may be justly
entitled.

Date: October 2 , 2019 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J. Sean Lemoine

J. Sean Lemoine
State Bar No. 24027443
sean.lemoine@wickphillips.com

WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP

3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75204
Telephone: (214) 692-6200
Facsimile: (214) 692-6255

Cowles & Thompson

Casey S. Erick
State Bar No.: 24028564
901 Main Street, Suite 3900
Dallas, Texas 75202
Email: cerick@cowlesthompson.com

and

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.

Andrea Perez
State Bar No.: 24070402
901 Main Street, Suite 5500
Dallas, Texas 75202
214.855.3070
APerez@CCSB.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

MONICA RIAL AND RONALD TOYE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 29, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on
all counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/J. Sean Lemoine

J. Sean Lemoine

RIAL AND TOYE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS OF CHRIS SLATOSCH PAGE 6

Copy from re:SearchTX

 EXHIBIT A

Copy from re:SearchTX

 CAUSE NO. 141-307474-19

VICTOR MIGNOGNA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 141ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FUNIMATION PRODUCTIONS, LLC, §
MONICA RIAL, RONALD TOYE, and §
JAMIE MARCHI, §
§
Defendants. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF J. SEAN LEMOINE

1. I am a partner with the law firm of Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP.

2. I am of sound mind, competent, and authorized to make this affidavit, the

statements of which are within my personal knowledge, true, and correct.

3. I am an attorney at law duly admitted and licensed to practice before the courts of

the State of Texas. I was so licensed in November 2000. My practice is based out of the DFW

Metroplex, which includes Dallas County, Tarrant County, and Collin County, Texas (and has

been so for my entire career).

4. I am counsel of record for Defendants Monica Rial and Ron Toye.

5. Upon review of the Affidavit of Chris Slatosch, dated August 30, 2019, I used,

among other available sources, https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/ to look up his residence, which

is 4017 E 37th Street in Odessa, Texas based on filings with the Texas comptroller for Silvrfire,

LLC (Mr. Slatosch’s company as identified in paragraph 2 of his affidavit).

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of email exchanges

between myself and Mr. Slatosch. I exchanged phone calls and email with Mr. Slatosch, who has

never told me that he is represented by an attorney.

DECLARATION OF J. SEAN LEMOINE 1

Copy from re:SearchTX

Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
 EXHIBIT B

Copy from re:SearchTX

Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
 EXHIBIT C

Copy from re:SearchTX

Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX
Copy from re:SearchTX