Morris Bart, LLC

INRE:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-5576
ADVERSARY PRO. NO. 24-3127
ORDER
Pending before this Court is the need for further resolution of Appellant Morris Bart, LLC's
("Morris Bart") Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. No. 4). Appellee MMA Law
Firm, PLLC ("MMA") did not file a written response, but the Court entertained significant oral
argument on this issue during an in-person hearing on December 2, 2025 . This is one of many
pending civil actions in this Court relating to an adversary proceeding between Morris Bart and
MMA in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. This appeal challenges the
Bankruptcy Court's order requiring Morris Bart to comply with certain discovery requests
("Discovery Order"). (Doc. No. 1-1 ). 	After reviewing Morris Bart's Motion and holding oral
argument during the recent hearing, the Court partially lifts the stay on the Discovery Order but
continues the stay for the discovery requests related to Foskey and other cases pending in the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
During the hearing, it became clear that one of the central disputes between the parties
relates to the allegation that Morris Bart may have violated the Bankruptcy Court's preliminary
injunction and/or the automatic bankruptcy stay in the Eastern District of Louisiana. MMA alleges
that Morris Bart had some sort of ex parte communication with Magistrate Judge Michael North
in Sherry Foskey, et al. v. American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 23-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 03, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05576 Document 9 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

5316, in the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Foskey case" ). MMA requested discovery related
to this allegation-specifically, for "[a]ll communications [and documents exchanged] between
[Morris Bart] . .. and any Louisiana court, judge, or court staff relating or referencing MMA or
Mr. Moseley." (Doc. No. 4-9 at 5) . The Bankruptcy Court granted this request. (Doc. No. 1-1).
To the extent that this or any other related discovery request relates-in any way- 	to the
Fo skey case or any other case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana, this Court STAYS those
discovery requests in whatever form they are made. As discussed in this Court's Order in two
separate civil actions, 1 the Fos key case implicates an issue of critical importance to the overall
resolution of this litigation: whether MMA waived its right to any attorneys ' fees or costs in every
case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana prior to filing for bankruptcy.
Nevertheless, there are other discovery issues that must be addressed to the extent they
impact non-Eastern District cases. At the recent hearing, the parties discussed the relevance and
potential privileges related to certain communications and documents with the Monson Law Firm.
To the extent that the Bankruptcy Court ordered that Morris Bart has waived all privileges and
objections to this discovery, that order is overruled. While this litigation is between two law firms,
the prevalence of the attorney-client privilege pervades the discovery process. Many, if not all,
responsive documents with high relevance to this fee dispute may involve the attorney-client
privilege. Of course, that privilege belongs solely to the client. US. v. Juarez, 573 F.2d 267, 276
(5th Cir. 1978) (emphasizing the "bedrock principle that the attorney-client privilege is the client's
1 This adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court has resulted in several pending actions before
this Court. In Morris Bart, LLC v. MMA Law Firm, PLLC, No. 4:25-CV-4917, and In re MMA Law
Firm, PLLC, No. 4:25-CV-5013, Morris Bart challenges the Bankruptcy Court's Order scheduling
a contempt hearing related to the alleged violation of the preliminary injunction in the Foskey case.
The Court filed separate orders in those cases to stay the contempt hearing, and the Court
incorporates those discussions of the Foskey case herein.
2
Case 4:25-cv-05576 Document 9 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

and his alone" ). Neither MMA nor Morris Bart can, without consent of the client, waive that
privilege by word or deed for the underlying clients. Id. The Court orders the parties to work jointly
to draft and present to this Court an order that protects the underlying attorney-client privilege of
all clients-past or present. They are to present it to the Court by January 9, 2026. If the parties
cannot reach an agreement, they are to notify this Court, and it will enter an order to protect these
clients. Morris Bart is ordered to produce the privilege log (along with any non-privileged,
responsive Monson Law Firm documents) to MMA by December 31, 2025. This Court will permit
Morris Bart to appropriately assert legal privileges in a detailed privilege log, but as the Court
cautioned during the hearing, any such asserted privileges should be detailed and not frivolous.
With respect to those responsive documents, if any, relating to communications with the
Federal Bureau oflnvestigation or the Louisiana Department oflnsurance, those shall be filed in
an in camera fashion for this Court to review, along with any specific objections and/or privilege
claims that Morris Bart contends are applicable. Morris Bart is ordered to produce those
documents, if any, to the Court by December 31, 2025.
By this Order, the Court hereby amends its previous Order (Doc. No. 8) as set forth above
and grants-in-part Morris Bart's Emergency Motion for Stay.
It is so ordered.
~
Signed on this the~ day of December 2025.
Andr~ \ 	~
United States District Judge
3
Case 4:25-cv-05576 Document 9 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3