`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 186-2 Filed 07/17/14 Page 1 of 3 Page|D #: 5652
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 07/17/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5653
`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 186-2 Filed 07/17/14 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 5653
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv—799-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`V.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTINA PONIG
`
`1, Christina Ponig, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
`My name is Christina Ponig.
`making this declaration.
`I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
`declaration, and they are all true and correct.
`
`I represented Invensys Systems, Inc. in a case
`I am a partner at DLA Piper LLP (US).
`styled The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford et al. v. Shore
`Chan Bragalone DePump0 LLP, No. 13-1668 (l92d D. Ct. Dallas Cnty., Tex.) (the
`“Shore Chan Lawsuit”). The Shore Chan Lawsuit arose out of a fee dispute between
`Invensys -and its former prospective counsel, Shore Chan Bragalone DePumpo, LLP
`(“Shore Chan”). The University of Oxford was also a party to the Shore Chan Lawsuit.
`In the Shore Chan Lawsuit, Invensys filed a claim for declaratory relief against Shore
`Chan seeking a declaration that it did not owe Shore Chan any fees, but never asserted a
`malpractice claim.
`
`In the Shore Chan Lawsuit, Shore Chan moved to compel production of a number of
`privileged Invensys documents, including versions of the Dickson presentation that the
`Defendants in the present suit are also seeking to compel. Shore Chan had received some
`drafts of the Dickson presentation during its relationship with Invensys. Shore Chan
`sought to compel versions of the Dickson presentation that it had not previously received.
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5654
`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 186-2 Filed 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 5654
`
`4.
`
`In its motion to compel, Shore Chan argued, among other things, that Invensys had
`waived the privilege by suing Shore Chan. The state court denied Shore Chan’s motion.
`In an order from the bench that was made off the transcribed record, the state court held
`that most of the documents that Shore Chan sought, including the various versions of the
`Dickson presentation and related communications, were privileged. After informing the
`parties of his decision, the state court judge instructed the parties to prepare an agreed
`order reflecting his ruling, but the Shore Chan Lawsuit settled before the state court’s
`decision was memorialized in a written order.
`
`I declare‘ under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on July 17, 2014.
`
`
` Christina E. Ponig
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
