Preview
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
CAUSE NO. CL-21-2986-G
DELIA TIJERINA DE MORENO § IN THE COUNTY COURT
PLAINTIFF §
§
VS. § AT LAW NO. 7
§
DIOLA PEREZ §
DEFENDANT § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Defendant, DIOLA PEREZ, hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," and
before any proceedings before the jury, makes and files this DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN
LIMINE, and respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel to refrain
from either directly or indirectly, upon voir dire examination, opening statement, interrogation of
witnesses, introduction of any evidence, argument, objections before the jury, reading of any
portion of the pleadings, or by any other means or in any other manner, informing the jury, or
bringing to the jury's attention, any of the matters set forth in the numbered paragraphs below,
unless and until such matters have been first called to the attention of the Court, out of the
presence and/or hearing of the jury, and a favorable ruling has been obtained from the Court as to
the admissibility and relevance of any such matters. The Defendant seeks to exclude matters that
are inadmissible, irrelevant, or prejudicial in this case. If the Plaintiffs injects these matters into
the trial of this case through a party, attorney, or witness, directly or indirectly, it will cause
irreparable harm to the Defendant’s case, which no jury instruction could cure. As such, the
Defendant would be compelled to move for a mistrial.
1. That Defendant has failed to call any particular witness that would be available equally to
either Plaintiffs or Defendant through the subpoena process, unless it has been first
established, outside the presence of the jury, that such witness is or was an employee of
the Defendant who is legally available, and who was clearly in a position to obtain
Moreno vs. Perez Page 1
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
material information on a point in issue. Boyles v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 464
S.W.2d 359 (Tex. 1971); Tex-Jersey Oil Corp. v. Beck, 305 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1957).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
2. That there will probably be testimony of certain facts by witnesses who are not later
called to testify at trial. Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 429 S.W.2d 516
(Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
3. The existence or contents of any ex parte reports, business records, public records, etc.,
which have not been properly admitted into evidence with the author or custodian thereof
present, either in person, by affidavit, or by deposition, and subject to cross-examination
or objection by Defendant’s counsel.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
4. Showing any document, photograph, or visual aid to the jury, or displaying same in such
a manner that the jury or any member thereof can see the same, unless and until the same
has been tendered to opposing counsel, and has been admitted into evidence or approved
for admission or use before the jury, either by the Court or by all counsel.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
5. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury for a stipulation to any fact, or that
counsel admit or deny any fact.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
6. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury that opposing counsel produce any
document or thing, or that opposing counsel or any party or witness exhibit, turnover, or
allow examination of the contents of any file or briefcase; except that a party may
demand to see a document used by a witness on the stand to refresh his/her recollection,
or that a witness testifies that he/she has used previously to refresh his/her recollection.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
7. Calling any witness, or offering any document into evidence, if the identity of such
witness or the document has not been disclosed in response to a proper discovery request.
If a party has a good faith basis to urge that such witness or document should be received
either because (a) no discovery request properly called for its disclosure, or (b) good
cause existed for failure to timely disclose, such party shall first approach the bench and
secure a ruling thereon. Counsel are advised that to the extent possible or predictable,
such matters should be addressed and ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned
for trial. City of San Antonio vs. Fulcher, 749 S.W.2d 217,220 (Tex.App. - San Antonio
1988, writ den). TRCP 215.
Moreno vs. Perez Page 2
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
8. Any objection based on failure to disclose evidence in pretrial discovery. Any party
desiring to urge any such objection shall request to approach the bench and urge such
objection outside the hearing of the jury. To the extent possible or predictable, such
matters should be addressed and a ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for
trial, although objection may be urged for the record outside the hearing of the jury at the
time such evidence is offered in the event the Court has overruled the objection at
pretrial.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
9. Plaintiffs be prohibited from introducing any evidence offering any testimony, or making
any argument regarding economic damages unless such has been disclosed in response to
a proper discovery request. Pursuant to TRCP 194.2 Plaintiffs is required to disclose the
amount and method of calculating economic damages. Pursuant to TRCP 193.6,
information and material not disclosed through discovery may not be introduced into
evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
10. Any hearsay statement offered for the truth of the statement by an allegedly injured
person concerning any diagnosis or medical opinions communicated to such person by a
physician or other healthcare provider. Such would be an attempt to introduce before the
jury expert testimony without a proper predicate concerning the expert’s qualifications
and abilities to give such testimony.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
11. That the Plaintiffs offered to, or was/is willing to undergo an examination by an
independent physician, psychologist, or other medical provider.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
12. That the Plaintiffs or any witness not previously qualified as an expert be allowed to offer
opinions regarding the cause or effects of medical conditions outside the common
knowledge of the jury, including, but not limited to that Plaintiffs has disc bulges,
protrusions, herniations, and/or stenosis, if applicable. The general rule has long been
that expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside
the common knowledge and experience of jurors. Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d, 662,
665 (Tex. 2007).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
13. That Plaintiffs be prohibited from calling any experts to testify at trial, other than the
experts expressly identified in response to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 194.3; Trubell v. Patton, 582 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App.--Tyler 1979, no writ).
Moreno vs. Perez Page 3
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
Furthermore the expert's opinion should be expressly limited to those areas which were
identified in the Plaintiffs’ answers to Interrogatories. In addition, prior to the expert
stating any opinion he must be required to disclose the underlying facts or data which
forms his "expert" opinion pursuant to Rule 705 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
14. Any reference to any request, either made in the past or made either at trial or prior to
trial, for personal financial records or appointment books from an expert witness, if any;
such documents are generally not discoverable to demonstrate the bias of a nonparty
witness.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
15. That Plaintiffs will incur attorneys' fees, or the amount thereof or that Plaintiffs' fees are
to be taken out of any recovery which they may receive as a result of this lawsuit; or that
Plaintiffs has experienced, is experiencing or may in the future experience financial
difficulties.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
16. That Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs' counsel, and witnesses should be instructed that they are
not permitted to refer in any way to "insurance" as such is not a disputed fact issue
herein.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
17. Inquiring of potential jurors as to their present employment or connection with the
insurance industry, or present or past connection of any family member with the
insurance industry, except that:
a) If a potential juror's information card discloses employment in the
insurance industry, such potential juror may be questioned concerning
same.
b) Inquiry may be made of potential jurors concerning their experience (or
that of members of their family), if any, reviewing, adjusting, or
allowing/disallowing claims, so long as no express reference is made to
"insurance."
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
18. That Plaintiffs and witnesses be instructed that they are not permitted to state or infer to
the jury in any way that answering any of the special issues submitted in this case with
any particular response would excuse, decrease, increase, or maximize (or any other word
of similar import) the payment, if any, to be made by Defendant to Plaintiffs, or that
answering any special issue with any particular response would require that some other
Moreno vs. Perez Page 4
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
special issue be answered with a particular response. Cooper v. Argonaut Insurance
Company, 430 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Such argument
is improper under the Texas special verdict system because it advises the jury of the
effect of its answers; see Pacific Employers Insurance v. Barnett, 230 S.W.2d 331
(Tex.Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1950, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
19. That Plaintiffs' counsel be instructed that he/she is not to mention or state to the jury
his/her personal beliefs (as opposed to stating what the facts will show or arguing the
facts in evidence) concerning the justice of their case, right or entitlement to
remuneration; such being clearly improper as held in Wallace v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,
413 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
20. That Plaintiffs' counsel and all witnesses should be prohibited from inquiring into or
disclosing that any of the Defendant have been involved in any prior or subsequent
automobile accidents. Any testimony regarding previous automobile accidents is far too
prejudicial to discuss before the jury.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
21. Plaintiffs’ counsel and all witnesses should be prohibited from inquiring into or
disclosing that any of the Defendant have ever been issued any traffic citations prior or
subsequent to this accident. As the Texas Supreme Court wrote in Missouri-Kansas-
Texas Railroad Company v. May, 600 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. 1980), evidence of other
accidents (in this case traffic citations) requires a showing that it is reasonably similar to
this incident and that the previous incidents occurred under the same or similar
circumstances. Further, the Court stated, "as a general rule, evidence of similar acts is
inadmissible on the issue of whether someone was negligent in doing or not doing a
particular act."
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
22. Plaintiffs' counsel or any witnesses being questioned by Plaintiffs should be prohibited
from requesting that the jurors "place themselves in Plaintiffs' shoes," as such arguments
attempt to have the jury decide the case based on issues other than the evidence
presented. World Wide Tire Co. v. Brown, 644 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App. -- Houston {14th
Dist.} 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
23. Any mention of a party or witness' religious affiliation or activities. Evidence of
religious beliefs of a witness is not admissible to enhance or repair credibility. TRCE
610.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Moreno vs. Perez Page 5
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
24. Any reference to the assets Defendant (or any of Defendant’s representatives) have
available for investigating, preparing and defending this cause. First Nat’l Bank of
Marshall vs. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d
n.r.e.); Wimoth vs. Limestone Prods. Co.,255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex.App.—Waco
1953,writ ref’d n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
25. Any argument or suggestion that a failure to award damages will cause Plaintiffs
privation or financial hardship.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
26. That the named Defendant may or may not have to pay any resulting judgment.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
27. That this Motion has been filed or that all or any portion of the relief requested herein has
been granted or denied. Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Civ. App.--San
Antonio 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 409.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
28. The contents of any pleadings which have been superseded by the current pleadings on
file in this case. Zock vs.Bank of the Southwest National Association,
Houston,464S.W.2d375 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14thDist.] 1971,no writ).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
29. Any interrogation regarding matters protected by the work product doctrine and the party
communications privilege. Specifically, interrogation regarding the preparation and
review of documents or information generated or accumulated after anticipation of
litigation.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
30. Any reference to negotiations, offers, or demands with respect to any attempted
settlement and/or mediation. TRCE 408, Beutel vs. Paul, 741 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App. -
Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
31. Any interrogation regarding matters protected by the work product doctrine and the party
communications privilege. Specifically, interrogation regarding the preparation and
review of documents or information generated or accumulated after anticipation of
litigation.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Moreno vs. Perez Page 6
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
32. Any reference to discovery disputes, if any, that arose during the preparation of the case
for trial, or any position taken by any party with respect thereto, or to the Court's rulings
thereon.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
33. That Plaintiffs' counsel and all witnesses shall not make any argument that Defendant
have failed to take responsibility for the accident or any such similar argument, as such
argument suggests past negotiations or a failure of the Defendant to make any offers of
settlement. Any suggestion of prior negotiations and offers are irrelevant and
inadmissible during trial. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' counsel will not question Defendant as
to whether Defendant accepts "responsibility" for the occurrence in question as the term
"responsibility" is vague, ambiguous, and such argument opens the door to negotiations,
settlement, and insurance. This does not prohibit Plaintiffs from arguing that Defendant
are legally liable for the occurrence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
34. Any inquiry or reference to the fact that the investigative officer has formed an opinion or
determined a cause of the accident or that one of the drivers was at fault until the
qualifications of the officer have been established. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. vs. Smoak, 134
S.W.3rd 880, (Tex.App.—Texarkana,2004,pet. denied)(investigating officer's testimony
on accident causation was required to be given by a qualified person in science of
accident reconstruction.) See also DeLarue vs. State, 102 S.W.3d 388, Tex.App.—
Houston, [14thDist.] 2003; and Ter-Vartanyan vs. R&R Freight, Inc., 111 S.W. 3rd779,
Tex. App.—Dallas, 2003, pet. denied).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
35. Any evidence of any medical records and/or billing that have not been filed in accordance
with the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001, et seq. and/or otherwise
disclosed pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e. Requests for Disclosure).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
36. Any evidence of any economic damages not listed by Plaintiffs in response to
Defendant’s request for disclosure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6. Medical expenses
qualify as economic damages. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757,
763 (Tex. 2003).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
37. Any testimony or argument suggesting Defendant asserted claims of privilege during
discovery. Claims of privilege are not admissible as evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 513(a),
(b).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
38. Any attempt in the presence of the jury to ask Defendant’s attorneys to produce any
Moreno vs. Perez Page 7
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
portion of the defense attorney’s file, any documents, stipulate to any fact, or make any
agreement.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
39. Any testimony by Plaintiffs’ expert concerning her/her discussions with another expert.
See Tex. R. Evid. 801, 802; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365
(Tex. 1987).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
40. Any mention that any party or witness is rich or poor, which is not relevant and is
prejudicial. See Wilmoth v. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.-
Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
41. Any mention of a regulatory measure, which is not admissible without a showing of both
its application to the situation in question and a clear violation of the regulation. See
Mottu v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 804 S.W.2d 144, 146-47 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 1990, writ denied).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
42. Any comment to the jury that the court can reduce the amount of the jury’s award.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
43. Defendant specifically moves this Court to instruct Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from
interrogating the jury panel as to whether they would answer an issue of damages in
accordance with the evidence, regardless of who pays the damages, or when the damages
will be paid, or whether the damages will ever be paid, or any similar version of such
inquiry, for the reason that the same improperly injects the implication of Auto liability
insurance into the suit, and Defendant would further move this Court to instruct
Plaintiffs’ counsel not to make such inferences in jury argument of similar import.
Griffith v. Casteel, 313 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.);
Hurley v. McMillan, 268 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e);
Ulmer v. Mackey, 242 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.);
Kendrix v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1995,
writ denied).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
44. Defendant would further move this Court to instruct Plaintiffs’ counsel from asking any
question of the jury panel during voir dire inquiring either as to whether any potential
juror could award a sum certain if the evidence supported such an award, or if any
potential juror believes that a sum certain is too much to award for any given injury or
damage allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs in this cause, or any similar question. In this
Moreno vs. Perez Page 8
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
regard, Defendant would show that this is a classic attempt to commit a juror before they
have had a chance to hear the evidence and require total speculation on the part of any
potential jury member, and is therefore totally objectionable.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
45. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from
making a comparison of this case to any other case for the purpose of illustrating
damages or injury.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
46. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from
offering or tendering any evidence or making statements to the jury regarding any alleged
theory of liability as against Defendant other than those allegations set forth in
Plaintiffs’ most recent petition.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
47. That Plaintiffs will incur, has experienced, is experiencing or may in the future
experience financial difficulties due to property damages allegedly resulting from the
incident made the basis of this lawsuit.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
48. That Defendant’s absence in trial proves negligence or culpability.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
49. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from
mentioning or stating that Defendant is not present for trial.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
50. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from making
sidebar remarks and remarks not addressed to the Court while opposing counsel is
examining a witness, or arguing any question to the Court, or addressing the jury.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 624 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1991, writ
denied); Rule 269 T.R.C.P.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
51. The Defendant further requests the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel not to make
any comment or reference to the failure of the Defendant to call any witness until such
time as all counsel has first approached the bench and obtained a ruling from the Court
that the necessary legal prerequisite for such comment exists; to wit, that such witnesses
are within the exclusive control of, or stood in some special relationship to the Defendant.
First Interstate Bank v. Bland, 810 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1991); Brazos
Graphics, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc., 574 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco l978, writ
Moreno vs. Perez Page 9
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
ref'd n.r.e.); Sanders v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 429 S.W.2d 516
(Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana, 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
52. The Defendant further specifically moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel to
refrain from offering any opinion, testimony or evidence from any medical practitioner
which is based upon possibilities, as opposed to reasonable medical probability. Boone
v. United Founders Life Insurance Co., 565 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1978,
writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bradley v. Rogers, 879 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.App.--Houst.[14th Dist.]
1994); Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1988). Defendant would further show that
such testimony includes any questions incorporating the words “can” or “could” without
reference to the proper burden of proof as such questions naturally request information
based upon possibilities.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
53. The Defendant hereby moves this Court to instruct the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ counsel,
and all of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses to refrain from any reference, inquiry, comment, or
question to any witness regarding the fact that the Defendant has claimed a privilege
under Rule 192 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann., Art.
4495b (Vernon Supp. 2000); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann., §161.032 (Vernon Supp.
2000), or other privileges, because such comment is not permitted under Rule 513(a) and
(b) of the TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
54. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ attorney to
refrain from referencing any photographs, motion pictures, or videotape recordings
without first establishing the proper predicate for admissibility of such evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
55. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ attorney to
refrain from referencing the anticipated testimony of any witness who is absent,
unavailable or otherwise not called to testify at the trial of this case.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
56. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain
from offering or tendering any evidence or making statements to the jury regarding any
alleged theory of liability as against the Defendant other than those allegations set forth in
the Plaintiffs’ most recent petition.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Moreno vs. Perez Page 10
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
57. The Defendant moves the Court to exclude any of the Plaintiffs’ experts new theories or
allegations other than what has been stated in their report and depositions.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
58. Any testimony or argument suggesting the Defendant asserted claims of privilege during
discovery. Claims of privilege are not admissible as evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 513(a),
(b).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
59. Any mention the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. See Tex. R. Evid. 408;
Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem'l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
60. Any mention or comment that the Defendant has filed to take responsibility for this
accident.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Moreno vs. Perez Page 11
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Electronically Submitted
3/24/2023 10:58 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Carlos Guerra
For these reasons, Defendant asks the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and her counsel and
witnesses not to mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any
manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the matters listed above without first obtaining a
ruling from the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTINEZ, DIETERICH &
ZARCONE LEGAL GROUP
11900 N. 26th Street, Ste. 200
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Telephone No.: (956) 289-2199
Telecopy No.: (956) 393-2699
By: /S/Roberto Colegio
Roberto Colegio
State Bar No. 24029487
colegio@mdzlegalgroup.law
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Roberto Colegio, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
served in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 24th
day of March 2023, to counsel of record as follows:
VIA-E-SERVICE: mcepeda@zreynalaw.com
Marco A. Cepeda
State Bar No. 24096797
Law Office of Ezequiel Reyna, Jr.
702 W. Expressway 83, Suite 100
Weslaco, Texas 78596
(956) 968-9556 Phone
(956) 969-0492 Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
/S/Roberto Colegio
Roberto Colegio
5991028
Moreno vs. Perez Page 12
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
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.
Roberto Colegio on behalf of Roberto Colegio
Bar No. 24029487
colegio@mdzlegalgroup.law
Envelope ID: 73983142
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Defendant's Motion in Limine
Status as of 3/24/2023 11:03 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Delia Tijerina De Moreno
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Marco Cepeda 24096797 mcepeda@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
desi Olivarez dolivarez@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
Linda San Miguel lsmiguel@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
Diego Espericueta diegoi22@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
Brianna Garza briannag@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
kimberly @zreynalaw.com kimberly@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM ERROR
spena @zreynalaw.com spena@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM ERROR
Associated Case Party: Diola Perez
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Roberto Colegio colegio@chavezlegalgroup.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT
Preview
Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra CAUSE NO. CL-21-2986-G DELIA TIJERINA DE MORENO § IN THE COUNTY COURT PLAINTIFF § § VS. § AT LAW NO. 7 § DIOLA PEREZ § DEFENDANT § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Defendant, DIOLA PEREZ, hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," and before any proceedings before the jury, makes and files this DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE, and respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel to refrain from either directly or indirectly, upon voir dire examination, opening statement, interrogation of witnesses, introduction of any evidence, argument, objections before the jury, reading of any portion of the pleadings, or by any other means or in any other manner, informing the jury, or bringing to the jury's attention, any of the matters set forth in the numbered paragraphs below, unless and until such matters have been first called to the attention of the Court, out of the presence and/or hearing of the jury, and a favorable ruling has been obtained from the Court as to the admissibility and relevance of any such matters. The Defendant seeks to exclude matters that are inadmissible, irrelevant, or prejudicial in this case. If the Plaintiffs injects these matters into the trial of this case through a party, attorney, or witness, directly or indirectly, it will cause irreparable harm to the Defendant’s case, which no jury instruction could cure. As such, the Defendant would be compelled to move for a mistrial. 1. That Defendant has failed to call any particular witness that would be available equally to either Plaintiffs or Defendant through the subpoena process, unless it has been first established, outside the presence of the jury, that such witness is or was an employee of the Defendant who is legally available, and who was clearly in a position to obtain Moreno vs. Perez Page 1 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra material information on a point in issue. Boyles v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 464 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. 1971); Tex-Jersey Oil Corp. v. Beck, 305 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1957). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 2. That there will probably be testimony of certain facts by witnesses who are not later called to testify at trial. Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 3. The existence or contents of any ex parte reports, business records, public records, etc., which have not been properly admitted into evidence with the author or custodian thereof present, either in person, by affidavit, or by deposition, and subject to cross-examination or objection by Defendant’s counsel. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 4. Showing any document, photograph, or visual aid to the jury, or displaying same in such a manner that the jury or any member thereof can see the same, unless and until the same has been tendered to opposing counsel, and has been admitted into evidence or approved for admission or use before the jury, either by the Court or by all counsel. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 5. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury for a stipulation to any fact, or that counsel admit or deny any fact. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 6. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury that opposing counsel produce any document or thing, or that opposing counsel or any party or witness exhibit, turnover, or allow examination of the contents of any file or briefcase; except that a party may demand to see a document used by a witness on the stand to refresh his/her recollection, or that a witness testifies that he/she has used previously to refresh his/her recollection. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 7. Calling any witness, or offering any document into evidence, if the identity of such witness or the document has not been disclosed in response to a proper discovery request. If a party has a good faith basis to urge that such witness or document should be received either because (a) no discovery request properly called for its disclosure, or (b) good cause existed for failure to timely disclose, such party shall first approach the bench and secure a ruling thereon. Counsel are advised that to the extent possible or predictable, such matters should be addressed and ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for trial. City of San Antonio vs. Fulcher, 749 S.W.2d 217,220 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1988, writ den). TRCP 215. Moreno vs. Perez Page 2 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra GRANTED DENIED AGREED 8. Any objection based on failure to disclose evidence in pretrial discovery. Any party desiring to urge any such objection shall request to approach the bench and urge such objection outside the hearing of the jury. To the extent possible or predictable, such matters should be addressed and a ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for trial, although objection may be urged for the record outside the hearing of the jury at the time such evidence is offered in the event the Court has overruled the objection at pretrial. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 9. Plaintiffs be prohibited from introducing any evidence offering any testimony, or making any argument regarding economic damages unless such has been disclosed in response to a proper discovery request. Pursuant to TRCP 194.2 Plaintiffs is required to disclose the amount and method of calculating economic damages. Pursuant to TRCP 193.6, information and material not disclosed through discovery may not be introduced into evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 10. Any hearsay statement offered for the truth of the statement by an allegedly injured person concerning any diagnosis or medical opinions communicated to such person by a physician or other healthcare provider. Such would be an attempt to introduce before the jury expert testimony without a proper predicate concerning the expert’s qualifications and abilities to give such testimony. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 11. That the Plaintiffs offered to, or was/is willing to undergo an examination by an independent physician, psychologist, or other medical provider. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 12. That the Plaintiffs or any witness not previously qualified as an expert be allowed to offer opinions regarding the cause or effects of medical conditions outside the common knowledge of the jury, including, but not limited to that Plaintiffs has disc bulges, protrusions, herniations, and/or stenosis, if applicable. The general rule has long been that expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside the common knowledge and experience of jurors. Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d, 662, 665 (Tex. 2007). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 13. That Plaintiffs be prohibited from calling any experts to testify at trial, other than the experts expressly identified in response to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.3; Trubell v. Patton, 582 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App.--Tyler 1979, no writ). Moreno vs. Perez Page 3 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra Furthermore the expert's opinion should be expressly limited to those areas which were identified in the Plaintiffs’ answers to Interrogatories. In addition, prior to the expert stating any opinion he must be required to disclose the underlying facts or data which forms his "expert" opinion pursuant to Rule 705 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 14. Any reference to any request, either made in the past or made either at trial or prior to trial, for personal financial records or appointment books from an expert witness, if any; such documents are generally not discoverable to demonstrate the bias of a nonparty witness. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 15. That Plaintiffs will incur attorneys' fees, or the amount thereof or that Plaintiffs' fees are to be taken out of any recovery which they may receive as a result of this lawsuit; or that Plaintiffs has experienced, is experiencing or may in the future experience financial difficulties. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 16. That Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs' counsel, and witnesses should be instructed that they are not permitted to refer in any way to "insurance" as such is not a disputed fact issue herein. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 17. Inquiring of potential jurors as to their present employment or connection with the insurance industry, or present or past connection of any family member with the insurance industry, except that: a) If a potential juror's information card discloses employment in the insurance industry, such potential juror may be questioned concerning same. b) Inquiry may be made of potential jurors concerning their experience (or that of members of their family), if any, reviewing, adjusting, or allowing/disallowing claims, so long as no express reference is made to "insurance." GRANTED DENIED AGREED 18. That Plaintiffs and witnesses be instructed that they are not permitted to state or infer to the jury in any way that answering any of the special issues submitted in this case with any particular response would excuse, decrease, increase, or maximize (or any other word of similar import) the payment, if any, to be made by Defendant to Plaintiffs, or that answering any special issue with any particular response would require that some other Moreno vs. Perez Page 4 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra special issue be answered with a particular response. Cooper v. Argonaut Insurance Company, 430 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Such argument is improper under the Texas special verdict system because it advises the jury of the effect of its answers; see Pacific Employers Insurance v. Barnett, 230 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1950, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 19. That Plaintiffs' counsel be instructed that he/she is not to mention or state to the jury his/her personal beliefs (as opposed to stating what the facts will show or arguing the facts in evidence) concerning the justice of their case, right or entitlement to remuneration; such being clearly improper as held in Wallace v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 20. That Plaintiffs' counsel and all witnesses should be prohibited from inquiring into or disclosing that any of the Defendant have been involved in any prior or subsequent automobile accidents. Any testimony regarding previous automobile accidents is far too prejudicial to discuss before the jury. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 21. Plaintiffs’ counsel and all witnesses should be prohibited from inquiring into or disclosing that any of the Defendant have ever been issued any traffic citations prior or subsequent to this accident. As the Texas Supreme Court wrote in Missouri-Kansas- Texas Railroad Company v. May, 600 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. 1980), evidence of other accidents (in this case traffic citations) requires a showing that it is reasonably similar to this incident and that the previous incidents occurred under the same or similar circumstances. Further, the Court stated, "as a general rule, evidence of similar acts is inadmissible on the issue of whether someone was negligent in doing or not doing a particular act." GRANTED DENIED AGREED 22. Plaintiffs' counsel or any witnesses being questioned by Plaintiffs should be prohibited from requesting that the jurors "place themselves in Plaintiffs' shoes," as such arguments attempt to have the jury decide the case based on issues other than the evidence presented. World Wide Tire Co. v. Brown, 644 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App. -- Houston {14th Dist.} 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 23. Any mention of a party or witness' religious affiliation or activities. Evidence of religious beliefs of a witness is not admissible to enhance or repair credibility. TRCE 610. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Moreno vs. Perez Page 5 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra 24. Any reference to the assets Defendant (or any of Defendant’s representatives) have available for investigating, preparing and defending this cause. First Nat’l Bank of Marshall vs. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Wimoth vs. Limestone Prods. Co.,255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex.App.—Waco 1953,writ ref’d n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 25. Any argument or suggestion that a failure to award damages will cause Plaintiffs privation or financial hardship. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 26. That the named Defendant may or may not have to pay any resulting judgment. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 27. That this Motion has been filed or that all or any portion of the relief requested herein has been granted or denied. Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 409. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 28. The contents of any pleadings which have been superseded by the current pleadings on file in this case. Zock vs.Bank of the Southwest National Association, Houston,464S.W.2d375 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14thDist.] 1971,no writ). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 29. Any interrogation regarding matters protected by the work product doctrine and the party communications privilege. Specifically, interrogation regarding the preparation and review of documents or information generated or accumulated after anticipation of litigation. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 30. Any reference to negotiations, offers, or demands with respect to any attempted settlement and/or mediation. TRCE 408, Beutel vs. Paul, 741 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 31. Any interrogation regarding matters protected by the work product doctrine and the party communications privilege. Specifically, interrogation regarding the preparation and review of documents or information generated or accumulated after anticipation of litigation. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Moreno vs. Perez Page 6 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra 32. Any reference to discovery disputes, if any, that arose during the preparation of the case for trial, or any position taken by any party with respect thereto, or to the Court's rulings thereon. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 33. That Plaintiffs' counsel and all witnesses shall not make any argument that Defendant have failed to take responsibility for the accident or any such similar argument, as such argument suggests past negotiations or a failure of the Defendant to make any offers of settlement. Any suggestion of prior negotiations and offers are irrelevant and inadmissible during trial. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' counsel will not question Defendant as to whether Defendant accepts "responsibility" for the occurrence in question as the term "responsibility" is vague, ambiguous, and such argument opens the door to negotiations, settlement, and insurance. This does not prohibit Plaintiffs from arguing that Defendant are legally liable for the occurrence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 34. Any inquiry or reference to the fact that the investigative officer has formed an opinion or determined a cause of the accident or that one of the drivers was at fault until the qualifications of the officer have been established. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. vs. Smoak, 134 S.W.3rd 880, (Tex.App.—Texarkana,2004,pet. denied)(investigating officer's testimony on accident causation was required to be given by a qualified person in science of accident reconstruction.) See also DeLarue vs. State, 102 S.W.3d 388, Tex.App.— Houston, [14thDist.] 2003; and Ter-Vartanyan vs. R&R Freight, Inc., 111 S.W. 3rd779, Tex. App.—Dallas, 2003, pet. denied). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 35. Any evidence of any medical records and/or billing that have not been filed in accordance with the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001, et seq. and/or otherwise disclosed pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e. Requests for Disclosure). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 36. Any evidence of any economic damages not listed by Plaintiffs in response to Defendant’s request for disclosure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6. Medical expenses qualify as economic damages. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex. 2003). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 37. Any testimony or argument suggesting Defendant asserted claims of privilege during discovery. Claims of privilege are not admissible as evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 513(a), (b). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 38. Any attempt in the presence of the jury to ask Defendant’s attorneys to produce any Moreno vs. Perez Page 7 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra portion of the defense attorney’s file, any documents, stipulate to any fact, or make any agreement. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 39. Any testimony by Plaintiffs’ expert concerning her/her discussions with another expert. See Tex. R. Evid. 801, 802; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 40. Any mention that any party or witness is rich or poor, which is not relevant and is prejudicial. See Wilmoth v. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.- Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 41. Any mention of a regulatory measure, which is not admissible without a showing of both its application to the situation in question and a clear violation of the regulation. See Mottu v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 804 S.W.2d 144, 146-47 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 42. Any comment to the jury that the court can reduce the amount of the jury’s award. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 43. Defendant specifically moves this Court to instruct Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from interrogating the jury panel as to whether they would answer an issue of damages in accordance with the evidence, regardless of who pays the damages, or when the damages will be paid, or whether the damages will ever be paid, or any similar version of such inquiry, for the reason that the same improperly injects the implication of Auto liability insurance into the suit, and Defendant would further move this Court to instruct Plaintiffs’ counsel not to make such inferences in jury argument of similar import. Griffith v. Casteel, 313 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hurley v. McMillan, 268 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e); Ulmer v. Mackey, 242 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kendrix v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1995, writ denied). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 44. Defendant would further move this Court to instruct Plaintiffs’ counsel from asking any question of the jury panel during voir dire inquiring either as to whether any potential juror could award a sum certain if the evidence supported such an award, or if any potential juror believes that a sum certain is too much to award for any given injury or damage allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs in this cause, or any similar question. In this Moreno vs. Perez Page 8 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra regard, Defendant would show that this is a classic attempt to commit a juror before they have had a chance to hear the evidence and require total speculation on the part of any potential jury member, and is therefore totally objectionable. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 45. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from making a comparison of this case to any other case for the purpose of illustrating damages or injury. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 46. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from offering or tendering any evidence or making statements to the jury regarding any alleged theory of liability as against Defendant other than those allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ most recent petition. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 47. That Plaintiffs will incur, has experienced, is experiencing or may in the future experience financial difficulties due to property damages allegedly resulting from the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 48. That Defendant’s absence in trial proves negligence or culpability. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 49. Defendant moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from mentioning or stating that Defendant is not present for trial. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 50. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from making sidebar remarks and remarks not addressed to the Court while opposing counsel is examining a witness, or arguing any question to the Court, or addressing the jury. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 624 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1991, writ denied); Rule 269 T.R.C.P. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 51. The Defendant further requests the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel not to make any comment or reference to the failure of the Defendant to call any witness until such time as all counsel has first approached the bench and obtained a ruling from the Court that the necessary legal prerequisite for such comment exists; to wit, that such witnesses are within the exclusive control of, or stood in some special relationship to the Defendant. First Interstate Bank v. Bland, 810 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1991); Brazos Graphics, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc., 574 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco l978, writ Moreno vs. Perez Page 9 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra ref'd n.r.e.); Sanders v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana, 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 52. The Defendant further specifically moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from offering any opinion, testimony or evidence from any medical practitioner which is based upon possibilities, as opposed to reasonable medical probability. Boone v. United Founders Life Insurance Co., 565 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bradley v. Rogers, 879 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.App.--Houst.[14th Dist.] 1994); Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1988). Defendant would further show that such testimony includes any questions incorporating the words “can” or “could” without reference to the proper burden of proof as such questions naturally request information based upon possibilities. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 53. The Defendant hereby moves this Court to instruct the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ counsel, and all of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses to refrain from any reference, inquiry, comment, or question to any witness regarding the fact that the Defendant has claimed a privilege under Rule 192 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 4495b (Vernon Supp. 2000); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann., §161.032 (Vernon Supp. 2000), or other privileges, because such comment is not permitted under Rule 513(a) and (b) of the TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 54. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from referencing any photographs, motion pictures, or videotape recordings without first establishing the proper predicate for admissibility of such evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 55. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from referencing the anticipated testimony of any witness who is absent, unavailable or otherwise not called to testify at the trial of this case. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 56. The Defendant moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney to refrain from offering or tendering any evidence or making statements to the jury regarding any alleged theory of liability as against the Defendant other than those allegations set forth in the Plaintiffs’ most recent petition. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Moreno vs. Perez Page 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra 57. The Defendant moves the Court to exclude any of the Plaintiffs’ experts new theories or allegations other than what has been stated in their report and depositions. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 58. Any testimony or argument suggesting the Defendant asserted claims of privilege during discovery. Claims of privilege are not admissible as evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 513(a), (b). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 59. Any mention the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. See Tex. R. Evid. 408; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem'l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 60. Any mention or comment that the Defendant has filed to take responsibility for this accident. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Moreno vs. Perez Page 11 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Electronically Submitted 3/24/2023 10:58 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Carlos Guerra For these reasons, Defendant asks the Court to instruct Plaintiffs and her counsel and witnesses not to mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the matters listed above without first obtaining a ruling from the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury. Respectfully submitted, MARTINEZ, DIETERICH & ZARCONE LEGAL GROUP 11900 N. 26th Street, Ste. 200 Edinburg, Texas 78539 Telephone No.: (956) 289-2199 Telecopy No.: (956) 393-2699 By: /S/Roberto Colegio Roberto Colegio State Bar No. 24029487 colegio@mdzlegalgroup.law ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Roberto Colegio, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 24th day of March 2023, to counsel of record as follows: VIA-E-SERVICE: mcepeda@zreynalaw.com Marco A. Cepeda State Bar No. 24096797 Law Office of Ezequiel Reyna, Jr. 702 W. Expressway 83, Suite 100 Weslaco, Texas 78596 (956) 968-9556 Phone (956) 969-0492 Fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF /S/Roberto Colegio Roberto Colegio 5991028 Moreno vs. Perez Page 12 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 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. Roberto Colegio on behalf of Roberto Colegio Bar No. 24029487 colegio@mdzlegalgroup.law Envelope ID: 73983142 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Defendant's Motion in Limine Status as of 3/24/2023 11:03 AM CST Associated Case Party: Delia Tijerina De Moreno Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Marco Cepeda 24096797 mcepeda@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT desi Olivarez dolivarez@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT Linda San Miguel lsmiguel@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT Diego Espericueta diegoi22@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT Brianna Garza briannag@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT kimberly @zreynalaw.com kimberly@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM ERROR spena @zreynalaw.com spena@zreynalaw.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM ERROR Associated Case Party: Diola Perez Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Roberto Colegio colegio@chavezlegalgroup.com 3/24/2023 10:58:46 AM SENT