AN INDEPENDENT CASE STUDY Mount Pleasant, Texas
MOUNT COMPLACENTTHE PAPER TRAIL

CAUSE NO. 44437 · DOCUMENTED CASE GUIDE

Court filings
& supporting records

Moring v. City of Mount Pleasant concerns requests for public records and whether the City’s searches, productions and explanations account for the identified records. Allegations in a filing remain the filing party’s statements unless the court rules on them.

CURRENT STATUS · SEPTEMBER 25, 2026

The case remains pending while the agreed search is reviewed.

No dismissal has been filed or entered. Ream reports that the City ran the agreed search, identified approximately 11,000 responsive emails, is reviewing them, expects production the following week and will not charge for the search. I agreed to move toward dismissal only after the final search and production. My willingness to dismiss reflects the mental and emotional toll of the proceeding; it does not mean I agree that every responsive record has been produced.

Read the September 25 status email · selected redacted PDF ↗

THE PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

A self-represented petitioner facing evidentiary rules and a fee request.

Pro se and learning the exhibit process

The filings identify me as Petitioner, Pro Se. I told DTRG that I did not understand the rules for formally offering evidence. The September 18 recording captures Ream explaining that the rules of evidence concern the submission of evidence. That context helps explain the revised notices, supplemental designations and matching offer lists.

A document being collected, filed or labeled as a proposed exhibit does not establish that the court admitted it. This page does not describe an exhibit as admitted or excluded without a ruling.

Listen and read the September 18 context ↗

The City requested costs and attorneys’ fees

In its August 28 amended answer, the City asked that the suit be dismissed, that I take nothing, and that the City receive costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief. The filing states no amount, and the collection contains no order awarding those fees.

Read the City’s requested relief · PDF ↗

Both local judges recused

Each signed referral order marks the option stating that the judge recused herself and requested assignment of another judge. A visiting judge was then assigned. The orders document the recusals; they do not themselves state why either judge chose to recuse.

Judge Saucier order ↗Judge Kopech order ↗

SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 · RECORDED CONFERRAL

The records concerns were explained directly to counsel.

In a recorded Teams conversation with Ream, Beck and Dial, I explained missing emails, native-format requests, electronic inspection copies and preservation of search history. Counsel asked for complete exhibits and a concise list to take to City staff and IT. Beck described counsel’s technical limitations and said available records could be produced; I agreed to simplify the list. These exchanges show what was explained and the proposed next steps. They do not establish completed production or a court ruling.

Transcript supplied by Kyle Moring; timing is approximate. The audio controls exact wording. Players display the position in the original recording.

Native format and metadata

Kyle explains that PDF copies did not provide the message metadata he requested. Ream acknowledges that this is the issue being raised.

Native format and metadata · ~12:17–13:49

~12:17 / 13:49

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~12:17 · Kyle Moring
So for like Exhibit A, the, the main thing with that was,

~12:22 · Kyle Moring
I had asked for, you know, the, what was it on there?

~12:29 · Kyle Moring
Electronic copies and associated message metadata where feasible. And like, you guys gave me the PDF, but it doesn't have the metadata associated with it. And then on March 10th is when you guys, you know,

~12:41 · Kyle Moring
whoever... said in the red font that the native format that the city had was .MSG files, the .MSG files. And so that's what I wanted. You know, it has the metadata. I was told, you know, that wasn't,

~12:55 · Kyle Moring
they weren't capable of that at the time, but they obviously were.

~13:01 · Kyle Moring
And that's all I really want for that one, pretty much, the... they combined all the emails into a PDF file with like no actual metadata for each individual email.

~13:17 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Okay, so your complaint is you want the metadata?

~13:20 · Kyle Moring
Yeah, I mean, that's what I requested for.

~13:27 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Okay. It's helpful to hear you say those words. At least we understand what we're talking about.

~13:33 · Kyle Moring
Yeah, I mean, that's the overall the biggest thing is, you know, the native format of the files and it including the metadata.

Missing emails from the name search

Kyle says that many of his own emails are absent from the Moring-related search. Ream asks him to identify what did not turn up and offers to discuss it.

Missing emails from the name search · ~21:35–22:29

~21:35 / 22:29

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~21:35 · Kyle Moring
I think the main thing was, too, with like the, you guys had included the KeyQL searches,

~21:43 · Kyle Moring
I mean, just seeing what was you know produced from that, because it's like I've said, there's even a significant amount of my own emails that are missing from the Moring-related search.

~21:56 · Kyle Moring
And I just don't understand how that's possible but

~22:05 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
um well if if you if if um

~22:14 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
if you can give us if you can show us what that is we're happy to talk about that with you like tell us what it is that you're saying that didn't turn up or whatever and

A concise list and technical questions

Beck asks for a list to take to City staff and IT, describes counsel’s technical limitations and says available records can be produced. Kyle agrees to make the requests more succinct.

A concise list and technical questions · ~28:07–32:33

~28:07 / 32:33

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~28:07 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
Well, those, Kyle, those, (unclear) what we want to do, is be able to go back to the City one more time and say, here's a list of things that will resolve this case, right?

~28:24 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
And if we have it, we're more than happy to, you know, give it to you. If the answer that we get back, though, is we can't do that, I don't know where we go from there um

~28:39 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
I mean, nothing that you're asking for,

~28:42 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
to me, raises any red flag of, oh, it's going to be, you know, confidential or anything like that. It's all, um if it exists, we can do it. But if it requires the City to go, you know, hire someone to go run a,

~29:00 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
you know, dig deep into the programming of some software, like we're probably not going to ask them to do that. If it's something that they can click a button on a program and run a report, that's fine.

~29:12 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
But we need, what we need from you is a list. That's what we're doing on our end is compiling a list we can take back to Candias and to the IT folks and say, here's...

~29:25 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
the things that if we get an answer to these, we can resolve this case, right? This is an exhaustive list of things. And then we can be able to know whether it's something we can produce,

~29:39 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
in which case we'll do it or not, and we can give you that response. But it's just a lot to sift through. And like Lea was saying, we're trying – our goal is to not generate a bunch of billing for the city.

~29:53 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
We, we you know, our goal is to, you know, simplify this and resolve it, especially in a case like this where we aren't really opposed. It's not like you're asking for something and the City saying no,

~30:07 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
under no circumstances will we give it right. We're, we're we want to wrap this up. So the things Lea mentioned, if you can, work on those and a similar level of succinctness would really help us out.

~30:22 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
So you can put it in, I want, you know, this report or whatever from this particular software. That's something we can turn around and explain to the City. But we are not technical like

~30:37 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
You have a level of expertise in this stuff that we're not going to match, right? And that's fine. but we're trying to translate what you're giving us into an actionable item for the city staff to tell us, yes,

~30:52 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
we can do this or we have this or not. Right? So that's our goal right now. And,

~30:59 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Yeah I mean,

~30:59 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
I think the judge is going to, be upset with both of us, right? If we can't come back after all this time with some progress, some of this stuff is answerable, right? We either have it or we don't.

~31:11 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
We can give it to you or we can't. And we need to, you know, start knocking some of those those things out. But your role in that would be just as as simply and plainly as you can to try and... you know,

~31:27 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
describe what the document type or the date range or whatever, like, you know, that something we can turn around and say, go search for this and get an answer back on, right? Does that make sense?

~31:40 · Kyle Moring
Yeah, I can do that.

~31:42 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
Okay. And these are good examples that y'all walked through as I was listening here. So those are all things, you know, there were three or four things here where...

~31:51 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
And it was you explained it in a way that was short, succinct, and was immediately something I could be able to convey to the IT to Bryan IT or to Candias or whatever without needing... as much, you know,

~32:08 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
technical background.

~32:10 · Kyle Moring
Yeah I have a that's my fault. I have a problem doing that. But I can definitely make it more succinct. In just like layman's terms you know

~32:18 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
That would be helpful for us because we will go ASAP and go

~32:25 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
try and get a response one way or the other on each, you know, whatever it is.

~32:30 · Austin Beck, DTRG Asst. Attorney
But...

~32:31 · Kyle Moring
Okay, I can do that.

Exhibit preparation, inspection copies and preservation

Complete exhibits and sensitive information

Counsel asks for complete source documents. Kyle explains that sensitive information affected his presentation; Ream suggests redaction with a notation.

Complete exhibits and sensitive information · ~7:11–9:40

~7:11 / 9:40

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~7:11 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Like it should be complete. And that may be complete. I don't know if that's an entire email stream - string or not, but it just should be complete. Right? If you're gonna offer that.

~7:25 · Kyle Moring
All right. So you mean like the full thread, even like the previous emails?

~7:28 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Yeah, like it should be that. Yeah. Like it should show the whole thread

~7:32 · Kyle Moring
Okay.

~7:33 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
that you're um that that is an issue. And so so and then flipping to the next page. Let's see. It's this thing called Exhibit A. I'm not really sure what that is. It looks like. I'm just not sure what that is.

~7:53 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
So so if you if you did like complete copies on those first two, I don't think we would object to those. But I don't know what this is. So

~8:04 · Kyle Moring
All right, so that this one is just like the... the metadata for, it shows the actual metadata on that page. I understand what you're saying. So you'd want like the actual source file, like the copy of it.

~8:17 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Yeah, I'm I'm just not sure what it is. And then because the two issues that we're looking at and that we would potentially be like arguing about is, um really, is it an authentic document? Which,

~8:30 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
like, is it a true and correct copy of this document?

~8:33 · Kyle Moring
Okay

~8:33 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Right? And so, and I'm just not certain what that is. But I don't think that's a document. I don't think we could, you know, we would object to that. I'm not sure what it is. It seems like it has...

~8:46 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
a lot of other communications and things on it. And so all of those are basically hearsay, right? And they're not necessarily evidence at all.

~8:55 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
They might be what you think about it or what someone else thinks about it. But that is not something that is really admissible.

~9:04 · Kyle Moring
Right. I understand what you're saying. The reason I did it like that was mainly because I have the actual, you know, native file, but the stuff that's associated in that native file, there's like unredacted,

~9:16 · Kyle Moring
you know, social security numbers and CPS history. But I get what you're saying. They just want like the actual printout of the native file.

~9:24 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Yeah. Yeah. And so.

~9:28 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
And if you need to like redact stuff because it's got sensitive information in it or something like that,

Electronic inspection copies

Kyle explains his concern about print-and-scan inspection copies and electronic versions supplied elsewhere. Read his statements alongside the underlying files.

Electronic inspection copies · ~17:16–18:55

~17:16 / 18:55

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~17:16 · Kyle Moring
That was the

~17:17 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
HS Cloud.

~17:18 · Kyle Moring
Yeah, the printout that the City gave me. Well, it was print-to-scan um

~17:27 · Kyle Moring
And like, if you know, if you can tell it says on there, like the URL at the bottom is shows that it's, you know, contained in electronic storage, like on the cloud um

~17:38 · Kyle Moring
And the City's own contract shows that they have the ability to do the print-to-PDF, which contains metadata. The print-to-scan erases the metadata.

~17:51 · Kyle Moring
And that's, again, you know, what I've been asking for. And and some of the records that have been provided to other entities like DSHS, in their productions, the City provides a PDFKit,

~18:01 · Kyle Moring
which is like the type of metadata associated with an electronic export. Um...

~18:06 · Kyle Moring
It's on theirs, but on the ones they give me, they print-to-scan.

~18:16 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Um okay, and so this, but for our purposes, in terms of talking about the admissibility of this, yeah, you would, you would as we talked about earlier, you'd remove all the extraneous stuff so

~18:30 · Overlapping speakers
[Overlapping speech; wording unclear]

~18:43 · Kyle Moring
that's the exact document that was given to me.

~18:44 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Okay. Okay. Great. Yeah. I'm not sure. Like, um, that's partially like, but that's good that, you know,

Preserving search history

Kyle identifies Purview search and audit information as the records he wants preserved. Ream asks for a written explanation. The exchange does not establish which logs existed or their retention period.

Preserving search history · ~25:09–26:56

~25:09 / 26:56

Press play to follow the transcript.

Read this exchange

~25:09 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
And then you asked something about the preservation.

~25:15 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Um. I'm to be honest, I'm not really sure what it is you're asking us to preserve. I mean, governmental agencies have duties to preserve records as it is. And so I'm not really sure what what you're asking um

~25:28 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
I think you said it's in paragraph 15, right?

~25:32 · Kyle Moring
Yeah, and it's mainly just the Purview stuff and e-discovery, like whatever they ran for the KeyQL searches. You guys showed in one of the exhibits that it still has it saved from like the January 13th one.

~25:42 · Kyle Moring
And that's that's kind of what I'm just focused on.

~25:47 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Okay.

~25:49 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
So, I mean, we have a duty to keep documents. And I don't know, you know, um if I understood better, like if you could show me like, okay, this is what I'm looking for to be kept, this document.

~26:02 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
I'd at least understand what you're saying, but I'm not following what it is. Is there an example?

~26:08 · Kyle Moring
I don't have any. It's just the Purview, the audit logs on those. I mean, they they create them you know natively with the software, but I know that some...

~26:21 · Kyle Moring
Purview and e-Discovery, it depends on like the the Microsoft subscription you have. Some start writing over them after a certain period of time. I think you guys have the highest one, but the

~26:31 · Kyle Moring
so it shouldn't be that, you know, a problem.

~26:37 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
Okay. So could you send that to me in an email? So I understand, like, I understand what it is, like the way you said it, um, you're wanting the, the Microsoft, whatever that is not written over,

~26:51 · Lea Ream, City Attorney
that would be helpful for me to know what it is you're asking about.

~26:54 · Kyle Moring
Okay. I can do that.

Read the selected exchanges · PDF ↗

Compare the request and actual query ↗ · Inspect the delivered files and format evidence ↗

PRODUCTION DURING THE CASE

The City provided an additional USB during the August 28 hearing.

I verbally informed the judge about the production because I had not heard the City’s counsel disclose it. No recording or transcript of that exchange is available. The USB and its contents are documented in this collection.

START WITH THE DOCUMENTED COMPARISONS

Five questions at the center of the record.

These comparisons credit later deliveries and distinguish unresolved questions from findings of intent. Each link opens the records beside the assertion being examined.

01

Did the documented search match the requested scope?

The City characterized the dispute as dissatisfaction with its searches. The produced Walmart query visibly joins requested conditions with AND, narrowing the results to messages that satisfied both conditions. That does not establish that no other search occurred; it does make the actual search history and summary important.

Compare the request, query and Microsoft guidance ↗
02

Does the exhibit verify the search it describes?

A statistics image for the Moring search appears in the material offered to support the Walmart search account. Its query and date do not establish the stated Walmart result. The corresponding Walmart statistics and complete search summary remain the records needed to reconcile the assertion.

Inspect the search-statistics comparison ↗
03

Why did responsive records appear only later?

Later or separate productions included DSHS referrals, the EPA–TCEQ–MPPD thread, the October 23 MPFD email, shared-link messages and other Walmart-related records. Their later production must be credited. It also leaves a verifiable question about the scope and reproducibility of the earlier searches.

Follow the searches and later records ↗
04

When were the Chief’s screenshots supplied?

The later delivery account must be read beside Webster’s May 7 statement that the screenshots had not been supplied and the two screenshots received June 2. The question is the dated delivery history and whether any additional maintained information fell within the request.

Compare the delivery accounts ↗
05

What did the supplied copy preserve?

The case also concerns native files, metadata, email structure and print-based copies. Those are ordinary characteristics used to verify source, history and completeness. The produced HS GovTech agreement and electronically generated versions provide context, but do not identify every search or export the City actually performed.

Review the format and record-integrity evidence ↗

THE PRINCIPAL FILINGS

Start with both sides.

A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the court’s authority to hear the case. A proposed order is a party’s requested form of relief, not a signed ruling.

FULL SUPPORTING COLLECTION

Search or expand the complete record.

277 prepared document copies · 3,168 pages. The collection remains available for independent review without placing every exhibit in the main reading path. Page numbers refer to the prepared redacted copy; removal notices identify omitted material. Some copies contain only selected source pages.

277 of 277 documents shown

City plea and search exhibits6
Petition and responses4
Procedural records10
Additional docket filings28

D04 · 5 pages

Petitioner's Notice of OAG Closure of Administrative Complaint File OR-25-055840-IC, July 6, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D09 · 10 pages

Unsworn Declaration of Kyle Douglas Moring in support of Pre-Hearing Brief, August 3, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D21 · 1 page

Petitioner's proposed Order on Respondent's Plea to the Jurisdiction (unsigned), September 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D23 · 1 page

City's Notice of Hearing on Plea to the Jurisdiction, as received September 10, 2026 (unsigned form)

Read redacted document ↗

D24 · 12 pages

Petitioner's Response to September 10 Letter Regarding the September 18 Hearing, filed September 11, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D25 · 27 pages

Petitioner's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and Preservation, filed September 15, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D26 · 2 pages

Petitioner's proposed Order on Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and Preservation (unsigned), September 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D27 · 15 pages

Petitioner's Supplemental Notice of Proposed Hearing Exhibit Designations and Matching Offer List, filed September 15, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

D28 · 5 pages

Petitioner's Second Supplemental Notice of Later-Obtained Record Relevant to Count IX (Exhibit I(r)), filed September 16-17, 2026

Read redacted document ↗
Exhibit notices9

E01 · 13 pages

Petitioner's Notice of Filing and Intent to Offer Supplemental Exhibit R (OAG certification forms), filed August 3, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E02 · 8 pages

Petitioner's Notice of Filing and Intent to Offer Conditional Hearing Exhibit S, filed August 3–4, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E03 · 15 pages

Petitioner's Notice of Supplemental Disclosure and Intent to Offer Conditional Hearing Exhibit T (DSHS messages), filed August 6, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E04 · 26 pages

Petitioner's Third Supplement to Pretrial Witness and Exhibit Lists with Proposed Exhibits U and V, filed August 23–24, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E05 · 74 pages

Petitioner's Fourth Supplement to Pretrial Witness and Exhibit Lists with Proposed Exhibits W, X and Y, filed August 26, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E06 · 34 pages

Petitioner's Fifth Supplement with Proposed Exhibit Z (City–HS GovTech executed agreement), filed August 26–27, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E07 · 34 pages

Petitioner's Notice of August 27 Conferral Response and Supplemental Identification of Exhibit AA, filed August 28, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

E09 · 113 pages

Petitioner's Limited Supplemental Hearing Brief and Paper-First Court Review Packet, filed August 26, 2026

Read redacted document ↗
Exhibit source library143

E06 · 6 pages

November 26, 2025 Webster email addressed to Moring and quoted payment-record correspondence

Read redacted document ↗

U03 · 5 pages

July 8, 2026 Richardson reply and complete saved quoted correspondence

Pages 1–5 of the 187-page source are provided. The remainder is blank or unreadable in the City’s copy and is not included here.

Read redacted document ↗
September 2026 objections and service records4

C18 · 5 pages

City of Mount Pleasant's Objections and Responses to Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits for the September 18 Hearing, filed September 18, 2026

Read redacted document ↗

C19 · 1 page

eFileTexas Notification of Service, September 18, 2026 — City's Objections and Responses served

Read redacted document ↗

C20 · 1 page

eFileTexas Filing Accepted notice, September 17, 2026 — Second Supplemental Count IX Notice

Read redacted document ↗

C21 · 3 pages

September 17, 2026 exhibit-conferral e-mail thread between Petitioner and City counsel (Ream/Beck/Dial)

Read redacted document ↗
August 28, 2026 City USB production73

The City USB production contains correspondence, request threads and attachments. These copies omit unrelated sensitive material. Delivery does not, by itself, establish who reviewed each file or what review process was used.

USB-T03 · 41 pages

RE: Texas Public Information Act Request – Code Compliance Documentation for Walmart Store #131

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T06 · 1 page

Second Request — Revised Itemized Estimate & Phase A Production Schedule (TPIA Request July 31, 2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T08 · 26 pages

Re: Public Information Request – Inspection Report Referral from DSHS (Walmart Store #131)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T10 · 122 pages

TPIA Request — Inspector Authority, Training, and SOPs for Retail Food Establishment Inspections (Wal-Mart Bakery, Deli, Grocery)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T12 · 2 pages

TPIA — Refund/Credit for Duplicates & Corrected Itemized Invoice — September 04, 2025 PIA

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T13 · 3 pages

Re: TPIA — Walmart 8/22/2025: Native emails, letter versions, delegation/SOPs — PIA [to be assigned/confirmed]

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T14 · 34 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – Walmart Store #131 (TLE Remodel) — Please assign PIA Tracking Number

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T15 · 2 pages

TPIA Request — “Permits Issued Listing” — 2024 & 2025 YTD — Please assign PIA Tracking Number

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T16 · 3 pages

Re: Walmart Store #131 — TLE Remodel (observed) — Active OSHA Enforcement Inspection — City permits/phasing confirmation & inspection during federal funding lapse

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T17 · 21 pages

Today’s site visit — Walmart Store #131 (TLE) — confirmation of inspection purpose/findings & TPIA request for all records (10/17/2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T18 · 27 pages

Texas PIA – Three Separate Requests (Please Assign Separate Tracking Nos.) – Walmart Supercenter #131, 2311 S. Jefferson Ave., Mount Pleasant, TX – 1/1/2021–10/18/2025

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T22 · 21 pages

RE: Texas PIA – Supplemental Request re 10/22/2025 Walmart #131 Trespass (MPPD Case 25-17553)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T24 · 65 pages

TPIA Request — Records re City meeting/visit with Walmart #131 management on/about October 28, 2025

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T25 · 14 pages

October 18/20 TPIA Follow-up: Walmart Store #131 - water/wastewater/stormwater (incl. FOG), fire watch/impairments, alarm/network outages, permits & cross department correspondence (01/01/2021–present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T26 · 3 pages

Preservation Notice — Walmart Store #131 & Related City/MPPD Communications (June 01, 2025–Present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T28 · 16 pages

TPIA Request - 2025 payments and supporting records for Shawn Ray Bryan; Davidson Troilo Ream & Garza

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T30 · 44 pages

TPIA Request - Communications & Records re Walmart Store #131, CT (10/22/2025), and MPPD Case 25-1____

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T31 · 8 pages

RE: External E-mail - FW: Public Information Request – Call Logs for (903) 575‑4149 on July 18, 2025

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T32 · 6 pages

Public Information Request – Walmart Store 131 Remodel Projects and Related Documentation

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T35 · 13 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – Aggregate Public Information Request Data (2024–2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T36 · 14 pages

Formal Ethics & Records Management Complaint Under Chapter 34 and Chapter 36 – Webster, Ankrum, Ramirez

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T39 · 72 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – Call Detail Records (CDR/PBX) for MPPD Lines (10/20–11/03/2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T40 · 3 pages

Re: Texas Public Information Act Request – Temporary Custodian Records (Chief personal phone call history) Related to MPPD Case 25-17553

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T41 · 86 pages

Submission for Council Review — October 28, 2025 Joint Inspection (Walmart #131) / HSCloud Records, Transparency, and Standards

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T42 · 32 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request - Walmart-related email communications and keyword search (01/01/2024–12/29/2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T43 · 21 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request - Search for “Kyle Moring / Kyle Moring / whistleblower / OSHA” (01/01/2024–12/29/2025)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T45 · 47 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – City Officials Visit to Walmart Store #131 (January 13, 2026)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T48 · 8 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – 01/20/2026 City Council Agenda Item (Ordinance 2026-2) and December Code Enforcement Monthly Report

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T50 · 16 pages

TPIA Request – Communications Between Lynn Barrett and Texas State Agencies re Walmart Store #131 (06/01/2025–Present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T51 · 41 pages

Request for Council Oversight: Records Discrepancies, Records Audit, and Public Interest Fee Waiver (Walmart Store #131)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T56 · 3 pages

Submission for Oversight Review – Evidence Binder Supporting Internal Controls Audit Request (MPPD Cases 25-1____ & 25-17553)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T58 · 25 pages

Supplemental TPIA Request – Omitted Emails/Plans Referenced by Deputy Chief Aristeo Rodriguez (Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Replacement) – Walmart Store #131

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T59 · 47 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – Walmart Shared Link Email(s) and Linked Repository Contents (10/23/2025–Present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T61 · 133 pages

TPIA Request – MPFD Follow-Up Fire Inspection Records (01/09/2026) – Walmart Store #131 (2311 S. Jefferson Ave)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T62 · 17 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request - Communications Involving City Attorney Concerning Kyle Moring and Walmart (06/01/2025 - Present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T63 · 10 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – Walmart “Spark Good/SparkGood” Program (Deed Verification; Eligibility Category; Donation History; MPPD/City of Mount Pleasant)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T64 · 33 pages

Texas Public Information Act Request – City Telephone CDR/PBX Logs (June 01, 2025–Present)

Read redacted document ↗

USB-T65 · 3 pages

Public Information Request (Texas Gov’t Code ch. 552) – City Email Platform, Retention, and Search/Export Capability

Read redacted document ↗

USB01 · 7 pages

MPPD Policy 602 — Sexual Assault Investigations

These policy chapters were attached to a January 23, 2026 internal records thread. Lexipol holds the copyright; the City’s copies bear a publication-permission notice. That notice does not independently establish another publisher’s reuse permission.

Read redacted document ↗

USB02 · 7 pages

MPPD Policy 313 — Child Abuse

These policy chapters were attached to a January 23, 2026 internal records thread. Lexipol holds the copyright; the City’s copies bear a publication-permission notice. That notice does not independently establish another publisher’s reuse permission.

Read redacted document ↗