Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 12, 2025·No. 15-25-00123-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00123-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/12/2025 9:12 AM Date: August 12, 2025 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK To: Fifteenth Court of Appeals and Travis County District Courts FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Re: D-1-GN-24-002171, 15-25-00123-CV, Whittney Ford v. Ken Paxton, AUSTIN, TEXASJay 8/12/2025 of Hartzell, The Texas Office of Attorney General, and The University 9:12:58 TexasAM at CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Austin Clerk

LETTER REQUESTING COPY OF CLERKS RECORD I, Whittney Ford, Appellant, request a digital copy of the clerk’s record that was filed July 29, 2025, with the 15th Court of Appeals to be sent to my email address. The University of Texas Requested a Supplemental Designation on 8/05/2025, I am requesting a digital copy of the supplemental clerks record as well.

The reporters record from Chavela Crain concerning the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment that occurred July 15, 2025, at 9:00 AM, in the 53rd District Court, Travis County Texas is incomplete and incorrect. The reporter’s record is incomplete because it is void of significant response from The University of Texas at Austin as the two advocates from the attorney general’s office both answered they were unsure twice about the existence of a current competition within the particular program which is the center of my Texas Public Information request and this suit and appeal against U.T. Austin. Both Rachel Behrendt and Zachary Rhines responded twice from repeated examination by the court from my repeated request of judicial notice of an adjudicative fact and this is not reflected in the reporter’s record. The court asked the two more than once and since there was not any objection to the relevance of the URLs and the information contained, their uncertainty toward the accuracy precludes an award of summary judgment as the movants failed to show no genuine issue of material fact exists. I produced evidence of a disputed fact question that is material to U.T. Austin’s request for immunity. “Evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact if reasonable and fair minded jurors could differ in their conclusions in light of all the summary judgment evidence presented”, City of Stephenville v. Belew, 692 S.W.3d 347 citing Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007). Reasonable and fair minded jurors could and would differ it is fact that the Attorney General did not understand the accuracy of if the particular program was closed and not set to recur, thus precluding U.T. Austin’s allegation of satisfying an exception to mandatory disclosure and precluding an award of summary judgment. See Reporters Record pg. 40. See Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a(c), and Reporters Record pg. 48- 49, and Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 44.1(a). The court refused to take judicial notice and decided to distract me from the actual issues. This is not fair, and the refusal to take judicial notice of the adjudicative fact likely caused the rendering of unfair granting of the plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment.

Dated: August 12, 2025 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Whittney Ford Whittney Ford Pro Se 4151 Wellborn Road Apartment 1101A Bryan, Texas 77801 wjacksonford@gmail.com 979-264-4944

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 104249315 Filing Code Description: Letter Filing Description: letter_requesting_clerks_record Status as of 8/12/2025 9:42 AM CST

Associated Case Party: The University of Texas at Austin

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Zachary Rhines 24116957 zachary.rhines@oag.texas.gov 8/12/2025 9:12:58 AM SENT

Martin Cohick 24134042 martin.cohick@oag.texas.gov 8/12/2025 9:12:58 AM SENT

Rachel Behrendt 24130871 rachel.behrendt@oag.texas.gov 8/12/2025 9:12:58 AM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Wolfgang P.Hirczy de Mino wphdmphd@gmail.com 8/12/2025 9:12:58 AM SENT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin (Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes
236 S.W.3d 754 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)