NRA v. Ackerman, Texas

Ackerman’s Response to the NRA’s Motion to Compel

February 12, 2020

Filing Summary

This brief contains Ackerman’s response to the motion to compel, and impose sanctions, that the NRA filed on January 22, 2020.  In addition to detailed request by request explanations for several of the NRA’s request for documents (p.11-24), the brief contains Ackerman’s view of the relevance of NRA attorney William Brewer in the case as a potential witness, and how this potentially complicates discovery in the case. 

Key Points

  • Ackerman notes that the document discovery dispute is rooted in the fact that the NRA’s attorney, William Brewer, “is a key actor and principal witness in this case.” (p.2).  Thus, Ackerman seeks a protective order, similar to the one that exists in the Virginia litigation between the parties, that would prevent Brewer from seeing certain documents in the case.
  • The brief notes that Brewer was the son-in-law of the late Angus McQueen, “patriarch and son of a founder of Ackerman” and also previously an Ackerman client. (p.2-3).  “Yet this relationship with them was toxic, given [Brewer’s] disdain for and disrespect of the McQueen family and his outspoken dislike for [Ackerman’s] relationship with the NRA because of his own criticisms of the NRA and Second Amendment.”  (p.3)
  • Ackerman notes that “in many respects, the Brewer Firm is a PR firm masquerading as a law firm to try cases in the ‘court of public opinion,’ not the courtroom.” (p.4)
  • The brief says that “LaPierre convinced Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North to leave his paid position at Fox and become the next President and an employee of [Ackerman] by hosting a television show on NRATV.  The NRA agreed to compensate [Ackerman] for Col. North be reimbursing [Ackerman] for his work.” (p.5)