`Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
`Envelope No. 46768574
`By: Brenda Espinoza
`Filed: 10/1/2020 4:35 PM
`
`CAUSE NO. 2019-77534
`
`CLIFTON MONCEAUX,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`DISA HOLDING CORP., AND
`UNIVERSITY SERVICES
`DISAWORKS,
`
`Defendants
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`61st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR INTERIM PROTECTIVE ORDER
`TO NOTIFY COURT OF DENIAL OF MOTION IN SEPARATE PROCEEDING
`
`Defendants DISA Global Solutions, Inc. and DISA Holdings Corp., improperly identified
`
`as DISA Holding Corp. (“DISA”) 1 file this Supplement to Response to Plaintiff Clifton
`
`Monceaux’s Motion for Interim Protective Order to notify the Court that on September 29, 2020,
`
`the 269th District Court denied an identical motion for interim protective order filed by
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of a different plaintiff in another lawsuit. (See 9.29.20 Order in
`
`Roys v. DISA Global Solutions, Inc., et al., attached as Exhibit 8.) The Roys case is based on nearly
`
`identical facts and allegations as this case and involves the same counsel representing DISA and
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`Like the plaintiff in this case, the plaintiff in Roys alleges that his urine sample drug test
`
`yielded a false-positive result and asserts claims of negligence and DTPA violations, among others.
`
`The documents at issue in Roys are essentially the same of documents at issue in this case, with
`
`1 DISA Global Solutions, Inc. is the only properly named DISA entity in this lawsuit. DISA Holdings Corp.
`is a Delaware corporation but does not operate as a drug test administrator, which is solely the purview of DISA
`Global Solutions, Inc. “University Services DISAWorks” is not the name any business entity to DISA’s knowledge
`and is not a party to this litigation. DISAWorks is not a business entity. It is a product developed by DISA Global
`Solutions, Inc.
`
`
`
`the exception that documents specific to each plaintiff and his drug tests, of course, are different.
`
`In fact, Roys involves the same laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) and the same medical
`
`review officer (University MRO, LLC) as this case.
`
`The Plaintiff in Roys filed a motion for entry of protective order that is virtually identical
`
`to the one in this case. Accordingly, DISA’s response to the motion in Roys is virtually identical
`
`to its response in this case and relied on the same legal arguments. There is no compelling reason
`
`this case should be treated any differently than Roys. DISA, therefore, requests the Court accept
`
`this Supplement to the Response to Motion for Interim Protective Order and, as the court did in
`
`Roys, enter an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Interim Protective Order.
`
`Date: October 1, 2020.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Holly H. Williamson
`Holly H. Williamson
`State Bar No. 21620100
`hwilliamson@HuntonAK.com
`W. Michael Reed
`State Bar No. 24083717
`mreed@HuntonAK.com
`Jessica Knapp Little
`State Bar No. 24084389
`jessicalittle@HuntonAK.com
`HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`600 Travis, Suite 4200
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 229-5700 (Telephone)
`(713) 220-4285 (Facsimile)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. AND
`DISA HOLDINGS CORP.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On October 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the Court’s
`electronic filing system on counsel of record as follows:
`
`Michael P. Doyle
`Patrick M. Dennis
`Jeffrey I. Avery
`Doyle LLP
`3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 100
`Houston, Texas 77019
`service@doylelawfirm.com
`and
`Pamela W. Carter
`Carter Law Group, LLC
`9217 Jefferson Highway
`River Ridge, Louisiana 70123
`pcarter@carterlawgroupllc
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`/s/ W. Michael Reed
`W. Michael Reed
`
`
`
`074539.0000054 EMF_US 82036472v2
`
`3
`
`
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
