A Houston couple who accused a law firm and a since-dismissed Progressive unit of conspiring to share car crash victims' private information told a Texas federal court that their suit is "neither frivolous, unreasonable, nor improper" as they pushed back against the law firm's sanctions request.

In a response filed Wednesday, Kelly Cook and Esther Kelley-Cook urged the court to reject Kanner & Pintaluga PA's bid for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Kanner & Pintaluga argued in its August motion that the plaintiffs' claims are based on unverified and inadmissible hearsay. The couple, however, contended that their claims are based on firsthand experience, which is sufficient to make a plausible claim that the firm committed barratry and conspired with Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. to do so.

"In demanding that plaintiffs provide all available proof to their claims, even when that proof is protected attorney work product, defendant has filed a summary judgment motion disguised as Rule 11 sanctions," the couple said. "Plaintiffs' claims are not only plausible on their face, which is sufficient at this stage, they are supported by extrinsic evidence that will be provided to the court for in camera review."

Cook and Kelley-Cook filed the proposed class action in November, alleging their privacy was invaded when they received multiple calls from the law firm after their Progressive-insured vehicles were involved in crashes. The couple claimed that the firm had an agreement with Progressive that allowed it to obtain crash victims' personal information once a crash was reported. A second amended complaint filed in April asserted claims for barratry and conspiracy.

Progressive was dismissed from the case with prejudice on June 10, court records show. The court subsequently dismissed with prejudice a majority of the couple's claims, including the class claims, leaving only Kelley-Cook's barratry claim, according to court filings.

Cook and Kelley-Cook said Wednesday that their counsel at EKSM LLP opened an investigation into Kanner & Pintaluga's business practices in order to verify their claims before filing suit. While the results of the investigation are attorney work product and cannot be produced, they said the results will be filed for review by the judge.

The couple further contended that the firm's motion merits its own Rule 11 sanctions, asserting that the impetus for the motion is to harass and intimidate Cook and Kelley-Cook and bully their counsel into prematurely revealing their trial strategy.

"The motion for sanctions is absolutely meritless. We did a robust investigation prior to filing suit and are continuing to gather information," Jarrett L. Ellzey, counsel for Cook and Kelley-Cook, told Law360 in an emailed statement. "As stated in our response and motion for in camera submission, the information we gathered is protected attorney work product, which defendant knew prior to filing this harassing motion."

A representative of the law firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Cook and Kelley-Cook are represented by Jarrett L. Ellzey, Tom Kherkher and Leigh S. Montgomery of EKSM LLP.

Kanner & Pintaluga PA is represented by Ted C. Craig and Veronica A. Meza of GrayRobinson PA.

The case is Cook et al. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. et al., case number 4:24-cv-04423, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.