The City's release says the judge "heard evidence that is not factually accurate." A letter dated Oct. 30 asks the City to remove or correct that sentence, or say in writing what was inaccurate, by 5 p.m. Monday.

GRANBURY — An attorney for Kolton Krottinger is demanding that the City of Granbury remove or correct a sentence in its Oct. 29 news release on the federal court order over political signs, according to a letter HCE has reviewed.

The letter, dated Oct. 30, is from attorney Brandon J. Grable of Grable PLLC in San Antonio, who represents Krottinger, the plaintiff in Krottinger v. City of Granbury, No. 4:26-cv-01369-O (N.D. Tex.). It is addressed to the City's attorneys, Thomas P. Brandt and Angela Lee of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP in Dallas. Its subject line reads "Request for Correction and Demand to Preserve Evidence."

THE SENTENCE AT ISSUE

The City's release, titled "Federal Court Issues Temporary Order in Granbury Sign Dispute," says: "On October 29, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor heard evidence that is not factually accurate and granted a temporary restraining order, finding that Krottinger had demonstrated he could suffer harm without immediate court protection."

The release does not say which testimony or exhibit it means. HCE read the release again Thursday night, and the sentence has not changed.

The letter says the sentence tells the public that Krottinger and his witnesses "put false evidence before a federal judge, without identifying any testimony, exhibit, or fact."

WHAT THE LETTER SAYS ABOUT THE HEARING

The letter says the City had notice of the Oct. 29 hearing and that its attorneys attended. Krottinger's witnesses were present and offered for cross-examination, the letter says, and the City's attorneys declined to question them.

No City official or witness appeared, the City offered no evidence and it filed no written response, according to the letter. It says Judge O'Connor entered the order on that record. The order itself says counsel for both parties attended the hearing.

"Having declined to test the evidence in court, the City should not disparage it in a press release," the letter says. "If the City believes any of it is inaccurate, the place to say so is the November 9 preliminary-injunction hearing."

WHAT THE LETTER ASKS THE CITY TO DO

By 5 p.m. Monday, Nov. 2, the letter asks the City to do one of two things:

  • Remove the sentence, or correct it to say only that the court heard evidence and granted a temporary restraining order, and note the correction on the release.
  • Or identify in writing each piece of testimony or evidence the City says is "not factually accurate," and the basis for that claim.

The letter also says Krottinger disputes the release's statement that the City "ceased enforcement actions." It says Municipal Court proceedings against the property owner are continuing. The City's release says the order "does not affect existing Municipal Court proceedings against the property owner."

The letter asks the City to confirm by the same deadline that it will take these steps. It also asks the City to refrain from public statements characterizing the truthfulness of the testimony or evidence offered by Krottinger or his witnesses while the case is pending.

THE PRESERVATION DEMAND

The letter says the City has been on notice of the dispute since at least Oct. 27 and that suit has been pending since Oct. 28. It asks the City, its officials and its staff to preserve all documents and electronic data and to suspend any auto-delete settings. That includes emails, texts, voicemails and photographs on City-issued and personal devices and accounts used for City business. The letter cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which deals with electronically stored information that is lost.

The records it lists:

  • Every complaint, tip, call or request that led to the Oct. 19 removal of the signs, and the identity of each person who made one.
  • Records of the removal and of the signs' return the next day, including Code Enforcement notes, photographs and work orders, and communications of Code Enforcement staff.
  • Citations and notices of violation, related fee records and the Municipal Court files.
  • Any complaints and enforcement decisions on other signs near the Hood County Annex in October.
  • Drafts, approvals and communications about the Oct. 29 news release, including its posting, edit history and any reposting on social media.
  • Communications among City staff, officials, council members or candidates about Krottinger, the signs or the lawsuit.

BACKGROUND

Judge O'Connor's written order, filed Oct. 29, temporarily bars the City from removing five signs and a banner from private property on West Pearl Street or issuing citations over them. It expires at 11:59 p.m. Nov. 12. The order does not affect any case pending in Granbury Municipal Court.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The letter gives the City until 5 p.m. Monday to respond. A hearing is set for 9 a.m. Nov. 9 in Fort Worth on whether the restraining order should continue during the lawsuit. HCE has not seen a response from the City to the letter. HCE will update this story.

Hood County Express — Est’d 1/26

© 2026 Hood County Express. All Rights Reserved

HoodCountyExpress.com

#HoodCounty #GranburyTX #CityOfGranbury #TexasNews #News #USNews