4/13/2018 5:55 AM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 23870040
By: DANIELLE JIMENEZ
Filed: 4/13/2018 5:55 AM

CAUSE NO. 2017-19367
BRIE ANA WILLIAMS
V.

ALVIN WESLEY PRINE, DAVID L.
RAMIREZ, LOS VAQUEROS RIO
GRANDE TRAIL RIDE
ASSOCIATION, LLC, AND HOUSTON
LIVESTOCK SHOW AND RODEO,
INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW AND RODEO’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW AND RODEO (“HLSR” or
“Defendant”), Defendant herein, and files this Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof,
HLSR would show unto this Honorable Court as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
This motion stems from an attempt by Plaintiff, Brie Ana Williams (“Plaintiff”) to
circumvent the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by using Chapter 22 of the TEXAS BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS CODE to request documents outside of the scope and limitations provided by the
discovery process.
II.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff has sued HLSR as a result of an alleged sexual assault that occurred on or
around December 1, 2012, while Plaintiff attended an event alleged to be hosted by Los
Vaqueros Trio Grande Trail Ride Association, LLC (“Los Vaqueros”). Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that she was served alcohol despite being underage and was ultimately placed in her

904223614.1

 boyfriend’s brother’s truck after she passed out. While she was passed out, Plaintiff alleges that
she was raped by Alvin Wesley Prine (“Prine”). Prine was arrested on sexual assault charges
and after a trial by jury in Liberty County he was convicted and sentenced to twenty (20) years in
prison. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was somehow affiliated with the event hosted by Los
Vaqueros, which Defendant denies. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant had knowledge of
Prine engaging in prior sexual misconduct and that Defendant was negligent in failing to prevent
Plaintiff and Prine from being overserved, which Defendant also denies. Plaintiff is seeking
damages for physical and emotional injuries as result of the incident.
Plaintiff, through her counsel of record, has served written discovery on HLSR.
However, Plaintiff is attempting to circumvent the rules of discovery by abusing Chapter 22 of
the Texas Business Organizations Code by having her agent, Wayne Dolcefino (“Dolcefino”),
obtain certain financial documents of HLSR outside allowable discovery under the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure. On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff requested, through Dolcefino, the following
documents:
1. A searchable ledger detailing any payments made to any security company for the
period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013;
2. A searchable ledger detailing any payments made to any security company for the
period January 1, 2017, through the present; and
3. PDF copies of documents detailing any payments made to settle any litigation
involving harassment or assault, redacted to exclude any information made
confidential under state law, between January 1, 2012, through the present.
See Exhibit “A”, Dolcefino’s Request to HLSR dated March 23, 2018. Counsel for
HLSR sent e-mail correspondence to Dolcefino on two occasions requesting that Dolcefino

2

 communicate through him as the matter he is seeking documents for relate to a matter that is in
pending litigation. See Exhibits “B” and Exhibit “C”, e-mails to and from Dolcefino dated
March 28, 2018, and April 3, 2018. Dolcefino has refused to communicate through HLSR’s
counsel and instead threatened to file criminal charges if HLSR fails to comply with his demand.
See Exhibit “C”, e-mail from Dolcefino dated April 3, 2018.
There is no question that Dolcefino has been retained by Pinkerton for purposes of the
instant litigation and, therefore, is acting on behalf of Plaintiff as Plaintiff’s agent. See Exhibit
“B”, e-mail dated March 28, 2018. In the email, Dolcefino states that he has been “formally
engaged by the Pinkerton law firm to investigate issues relating to the brutal sexual assault of a
young woman by folks associated with Los Vaqueros trail ride.” Id. Based upon Dolcefino’s
past actions while working with Plaintiff’s law firm, HLSR believes Dolcefino is attempting to
obtain information that Plaintiff would not be entitled to obtain through the normal course of
discovery and use such information in the instant lawsuit and to create negative publicity in an
effort to prejudice HLSR. Defendant cites to the below cases as examples of Dolcefino’s past
behavior wherein the same method was used to obtain documents outside allowed discovery in
cases that were being actively litigated.
In a suit styled Estate of Hunter N. Levine v. Helping a Hero, wherein the plaintiff was
represented by Pinkerton, Dolcefino sent a request to HELPINGAHERO.ORG (HAH) seeking
documents.

See Exhibit “D”, Dolcefino letter to Meredith Iler dated January 30, 2014.

Discovery was previously propounded by Pinkerton on behalf of the plaintiff, followed by
Dolcefino’s request to HAH seeking the documents. After Dolcefino received the financials
from HAH “pursuant to Chapter 22 of the Business and Organizations Code”, they were used
later in local news media to prejudice and allegedly defame HAH. Also in the Levine matter,

3

 Dolcefino has threatened to and did in fact file a criminal complaint against HAH for allegedly
refusing to produce documents. Exhibit “E”, “Attorney Chad Pinkerton Challenges Helping a
Hero Organization for Continued Abuse of Veterans and Their Families”.
In a separate matter that was handled by another attorney with defense counsel’s law
firm, Lathan v. Helpingahero.org, Cause Number 2014-66167 in the 113th Judicial District of
Harris County, Texas, Dolcefino and Pinkerton engaged in the same conduct. Specifically,
Pinkerton sent discovery to HAH and Dolcefino attempted to get documents through the use of
Chapter 22 of the Business Organizations Code, thereby circumventing the rules of discovery.
Counsel for the defendant passed the hearing on a Motion for Protection after Dolcefino
intervened in the case, becoming a party to the suit, thereby making his Chapter 22 request for
information moot as the Court stated he should get the documents through the formal discovery
process. Dolcefino subsequently non-suited his intervention and forwarded information to the
District Attorney seeking to have charges pressed for HAH’s failure to produce documents. See
Exhibit “F” a true and correct copy of correspondence from Dolcefino to Devon Anderson dated
June 12, 2015. Counsel for HAH then re-filed its Motion for Protection. Again, the media to
unfairly prejudice the HAH. See attached Exhibit “G”, November 26, 2014, Houston Press
Article regarding HAH.
HLSR anticipates, based upon the above prior actions, that once Dolcefino obtains the
requested information from HSLR, he will provide it to Plaintiff’s counsel, who will then use it
unfairly in the media in an attempt to prejudice HLSR. HLSR is not attempting to keep secrets
or conceal anything. There is a clear link between Dolcefino, Pinkerton and Plaintiff. Plaintiff
counsel’s attempt to obtain documents, through Dolcefino, directly from a party to this lawsuit
while Dolcefino has been retained by Plaintiff’s counsel, is a clear attempt to circumvent the

4

 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by using Chapter 22 of the Texas Business Organizations Code.
The documents sought are outside of the scope of discovery and using Chapter 22 of the Texas
Business Organizations Code precludes any opportunity to legally object to such requests. Any
attempt by Dolcefino to characterize his involvement in any other manner, such as claiming that
he is pursuing his own interests and agenda, is misleading and disingenuous. As such, HLSR
would seek protection from producing documents and from responding to any requests by
Dolcefino attempting to obtain information related to the incident in question, thereby
circumventing the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
III.
ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure list the permissible forms of discovery that may be
sought in a lawsuit. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.1(a-g). None of the permissible forms of discovery
include a public inspection request to a non-profit institution. Id. Plaintiff is attempting to
circumvent the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain information regarding HLSR’S finances
and such requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Several courts have held that only the permissible forms of discovery should be used to
obtain information with regard to a pending lawsuit. In United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp.,
the United States Supreme Court admonished against using the Freedom of Information Act to
circumvent discovery limitations. 465 U.S. 792, 801-02 (1984). The Court stated “respondents’
contention that they can obtain through the FOIA material that is normally privileged would
create an anomaly in that the FOIA could be used to supplement civil discovery. We have
consistently rejected such a construction of the FOIA.” Id.
Section 552.021 is analogous to Chapter 22 of the Texas Business Organization Code as
it is a provision allowing the public access to certain records. The Attorney General of Texas
5

 Public Information Handbook 2018, states that Section 552.103(a) of the Texas Government
Code was intended to prevent the use of the Public Information Act as a method of avoiding the
rules of discovery used in litigation.

See Exhibit “H”, Attorney General of Texas Public

Information Handbook 2018; Thomas v. Colwyn, 71 S.W.3d 473, 487 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002,
no pet.); Attorney General Opinion JIM-1048 at 4 (1989). Section 552.103(a) provides,
(a)
Information is excepted from the requirements of Section
552.021 if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or
criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or
may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a
political subdivision, as a consequence of the person’s office or
employment, is or may be a party.
TEX. GOV’T CODE § 552.103(a). Although the information sought may be information that
the general public is entitled to, the literal language of the statute assumes the information is
public, yet the legislature provided an exception for the very specific purpose of protection
disclosure during litigation due to the discovery process. See Cornyn v. City of Garland, 994
S.W.2d 258, 264-65 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).
While there is no analogous provision within the Texas Business Organizations Code
Chapter 22, it is clear from the above analogous statute and United States Supreme Court’s
opinion that allowing for the release of information when a party is involved in litigation should
not be allowed as it is simply a means to circumvent discovery rules.
HLSR seeks protection from this Honorable Court to prevent the disclosure of this
information. Plaintiff’s abuse of Chapter 22 of the Texas Business Organizations Code is clearly
against the legislative intent that nonprofit corporations operate transparently for their donors’
benefit and not so that Plaintiff may gain access to documents outside of the scope of discovery.
Knapp Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Grass, 443 S.W.3d 182, 188 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi 2013, pet.
denied) (stating the legislative intent for Chapter 22).
6

 Moreover, HLSR will not be able to properly object to the documents as HLSR is able to
do in formal discovery and this inability will unfairly prejudice the HLSR. It is clear that
Dolcefino’s request, as Plaintiffs’ agent, is nothing more than an improper attempt to circumvent
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the protections afforded to parties in litigation and HLSR
seeks this Court’s protection.
In addition to abusing the discovery process, as previously mentioned, Dolcefino, as
agent for Plaintiff, has threatened criminal action if his demand is not met. See e-mail from
Dolcefino to Bruce C. Gaible, dated April 3, 2018, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as
Exhibit “C”. Pursuant to Rule 4.04(b), “a lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or
threaten to present criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter.”
TEX. Disc. R. PROF. CON. 4.04(b). Such threats, by Dolcefino as agent for Plaintiff, are
therefore inappropriate and against the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct.
IV.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW AND
RODEO, INC., Defendant herein respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant its Motion
for a Protective Order thereby ordering the practices of Plaintiff stated above halted and all other
remedies Defendant may be entitled, in law or equity.

7

 Respectfully submitted,
LECLAIRRYAN
By:

/s/ Michael A. DeScioli
__________________________________
Bruce C. Gaible
Texas State Bar No. 07567400
Michael A. DeScioli
Texas State Bar No. 24045779
1233 West Loop South, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 654-1111 Telephone
(713) 650-0027 Facsimile
E-Mail: bruce.gaible@leclairryan.com
E-Mail: michael.descioli@leclairryan.com
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW
AND RODEO, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded
by facsimile, on this 13th day of April, 2018, to the following:
C. Chad Pinkerton
Benjamin R. Roberts
The Pinkerton Law Firm, PLLC
5020 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 550
Houston, Texas 77006

Via E-file.

/s/ Michael A. DeScioli
__________________________________
MICHAEL A. DESCIOLI

8