Preview
FILED
2/28/2024 3:49 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-20-09392
EDITH HERNANDEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
FREDDIE MASON, JR. §
§
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, EDITH HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff in the above-numbered and styled
cause, before the commencement of the voir dire examination of the jury panel, and before all
parties have actually announced ready in open court, respectfully move this Court for an order
instructing and directing the Defendant and their witnesses and counsel not to ask any questions
on voir dire, interrogate any witnesses, make any references directly or indirectly or make any
comments in the presence of the jury in any manner whatsoever concerning any of the matters
hereinafter set forth, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court
outside the presence and outside the hearing of all prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected
in this cause, in regard to any alleged theory of admissibility of such matters, to-wit:
1. That this motion has been filed or any ruling made by this Court in response to this
motion, suggesting or inferring to the jury that Plaintiff has moved to prohibit proof
or that the Court has excluded proof of any particular matter.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
2. The time or circumstance under which Plaintiff employed an attorney.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
3. That Plaintiff has not called to testify any witness equally available to both parties
in this cause. In this connection, Plaintiff moves that counsel for the Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 1
further be instructed to not tender, read from, or refer to any ex parte statement or
report of any person not then and there present in Court to testify and to be cross-
examined by counsel for Plaintiff and that Defendant’s counsel be instructed to not
suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise what would have been the testimony
of any witness not actually called.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
4. That should Defendant wish to introduce any drawings, photographs, videos, or
motion picture film into evidence, that the same be tendered to Court and opposing
counsel, outside of the presence of the jury, and shown or exhibited to determine
its relevance and suitability for introduction into evidence prior to and before
informing the jury as to its existence or its tender into evidence.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
5. Further, that Defendant not mention or state to the jury the probable testimony of a
person who is absent, unavailable, or not called to testify in this cause.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
6. Soliciting an expert opinion from any person without first establishing that person’s
qualifications to render the opinion inquired about.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
7. Offering in the presence and hearing of the jury to stipulate to any fact or issue.
Plaintiff is willing to stipulate to many routine matters, but this should be done
under circumstances to expedite the trial rather than to make Defendant appear
magnanimous or to make Plaintiff appear tedious or wasteful of the jury’s time.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
8. Whether Plaintiff’s attorney represents Plaintiff on a contingent fee or cash fee or
any other kind of fee basis and who is paying the expenses in connection with this
litigation.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
9. Whether or not Plaintiff has ever made prior or subsequent claims for money for
injuries of any nature, or whether or not said claim resulted in settlement or lawsuits
being filed or tried.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 2
10. Offering any evidence or questioning regarding any civil litigation any Plaintiffs,
attorney, or healthcare provider has been involved in.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
11. That no mention be made of the effect or result of a claim, suit or judgment upon
medical costs, insurance rates, premiums, charges, either generally or as
particularly applied to the party in question as the result of this or any other matter.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
12. Any reference that Plaintiff sought to exclude evidence during pretrial discovery or
that the Court has ruled concerning the scope of pretrial discovery.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
13. That Plaintiff received any benefits of any kind or character from a collateral
source.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
14. Any mention be it through argument or an attempt to elicit testimony, of whether
Plaintiff had health insurance at any time or whether health insurance has or has
not paid any of Plaintiff’s medical expenses.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
15. That the Defendant’s representatives or counsel not refer to, display, or quote from
any books, treatises, articles, pamphlets, manuals, or documents without previously
establishing that the items were produced timely in response to Plaintiff’s requests
for production, disclosure, subpoenas duces tecum, or other discovery.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
16. That any recovery by the Plaintiff would or would not be subject to federal income
tax or other form of taxation. (See, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. McFerrin,
291 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1956).
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
17. That the Defendant be instructed not to make demands or requests before the jury
for matters found or contained in Plaintiff’s file, which would include statements,
pleadings, photographs, videotapes, and other documents, nor to demand a request
for further or additional medical examinations, physical demonstrations, or other
requests during the course of the trial and in the presence of the jury.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 3
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
18. Any suggestion or inference that is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s burden of proof in
a civil action seeking damages. In this regard, Plaintiff moves the Court to instruct
defense counsel from suggesting that before Plaintiff may prevail, the Defendant
must be found guilty, or that they believe beyond reasonable doubt, or that the
Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant’s actions were of an intentional wrong,
because such references are confusing and misleading to the jury, and designed to
encourage the imposition of legal standards in this case different than those
imposed by the law.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
19. That Defendant’s counsel not mention any of Plaintiff’s medical history that is not
relevant to the issues to be determined by the jury in this case.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
20. Any reference to Plaintiff’s right to recover pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, which conflicts with or is different than the instructions which the jury will
receive from the Court as part of its fact finding obligations on the issue of damages.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
21. That Defendant’s counsel not express their personal opinions regarding the case.
Wallace v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App. – Texarkana
1968, writ refused n.r.e.).
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
22. Any reference, mention, argument, or inference to the jury that Plaintiff’s injuries
could not have occurred from the incident made the basis of this lawsuit without
introducing expert testimony establishing same. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995).
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
23. Whether any of Plaintiff’s medical providers have been guaranteed payment out of
the settlement or verdict in this matter or that a Letter of Protection has been
provided to the healthcare provider. Such evidence is not relevant since Plaintiff
will remain personally liable for all medical expenses incurred regardless of the
outcome of this litigation. Furthermore, the probative value of such evidence, if
any, is far outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 4
24. Offering evidence or attempting to elicit testimony that Plaintiff’s injuries were
caused by any conduct of any third-party health care provider unless such
allegations are supported by properly qualified expert medical testimony
establishing that the third-party healthcare provider: (1) undertook a mode or form
of treatment which a reasonable and prudent health care provider would not have
undertaken under the same or similar circumstances; and (2) that such conduct
proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff. Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.
1977).
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
25. That Plaintiff’s attorneys had sent or referred Plaintiff to any physician. Such
information is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the case. Further such
information inquires into communication between the attorney and client and
Plaintiff hereby claims the attorney-client privilege. See In Re Avila, 22 S.W.3d
349 (Tex. 2000) (dissenting opinion denying petition for writ of mandamus).
Further, the introduction of any such evidence is offered solely for the purpose of
impeaching the credibility of the treating medical providers by suggesting that there
is a monetary interest and bias of the witnesses. To offer any such impeachment
evidence other than through the direct examination of each, individual medical
witness is improper and strictly prohibited by Texas Rule of Evidence 613.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
26. That any of Plaintiff’s past medical expenses that have been established by a TRCP
§ 18.001 affidavit are either: (a) not reasonable at the time and place that the service
was provided, or (b) that the service was not necessary.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
27. That Plaintiff has been involved in any subsequent vehicle accidents.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
28. Whether Plaintiff did or did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the
collision.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
29. That Defendant not mention or elicit any answer from Plaintiff that would inquire
into communication privileged by the attorney/client relationship, including but not
limited to, matters concerning the time or circumstances under which Plaintiff
sought or obtained medical treatment.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 5
30. Any questions to Plaintiff regarding the billing practices of healthcare providers
and/or whether they have ever received a bill or paid any medical expenses.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
31. Any insinuation, testimony, questions, reference, suggestion, demonstration or use
of exemplars suggesting the wreck occurred in a manner for which there is no
evidence (i.e. Plaintiff darted out in front of Defendant or Defendant was faced with
a sudden emergency, etc.). Such testimony is not supported by the evidence, is far
more prejudicial than probative and amounts to hearsay under TRE 801.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
32. Any mention be it through argument or an attempt to elicit testimony, of the
name(s) of the law firm(s) which Plaintiff retained to represent her in the pursuant
of her claims arising out of the motor vehicle collision that forms the basis of this
suit.
Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________
Respectfully submitted,
DOUGLAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
/s/ Eric Douglas
ERIC DOUGLAS
eric@lawdouglas.com
Texas Bar No. 24097620
P.O. Box 632271
Irving, Texas 75063
Ph: (214) 301-0336
Fax: (214) 245-5910
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 28, 2024 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
forwarded to all known counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure:
T. Cass Keramidas
Keramidas Law Firm
801 E. Campbell Road, Suite 625
Richardson, Texas 75081
cass@keramidaslaw.com
/s/ Eric Douglas
ERIC DOUGLAS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 7
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.
Eric Douglas on behalf of Eric Douglas
Bar No. 24097620
eric@lawdouglas.com
Envelope ID: 85016470
Filing Code Description: Motion - In Limine
Filing Description:
Status as of 2/29/2024 11:36 AM CST
Associated Case Party: FREDDIE MASON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Cass Keramidas efiling@keramidaslaw.com 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT
ERIC DOUGLAS eric@lawdouglas.com 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/28/2024 3:49 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-20-09392 EDITH HERNANDEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § VS. § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § FREDDIE MASON, JR. § § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, EDITH HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff in the above-numbered and styled cause, before the commencement of the voir dire examination of the jury panel, and before all parties have actually announced ready in open court, respectfully move this Court for an order instructing and directing the Defendant and their witnesses and counsel not to ask any questions on voir dire, interrogate any witnesses, make any references directly or indirectly or make any comments in the presence of the jury in any manner whatsoever concerning any of the matters hereinafter set forth, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and outside the hearing of all prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause, in regard to any alleged theory of admissibility of such matters, to-wit: 1. That this motion has been filed or any ruling made by this Court in response to this motion, suggesting or inferring to the jury that Plaintiff has moved to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of any particular matter. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 2. The time or circumstance under which Plaintiff employed an attorney. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 3. That Plaintiff has not called to testify any witness equally available to both parties in this cause. In this connection, Plaintiff moves that counsel for the Defendant PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 1 further be instructed to not tender, read from, or refer to any ex parte statement or report of any person not then and there present in Court to testify and to be cross- examined by counsel for Plaintiff and that Defendant’s counsel be instructed to not suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise what would have been the testimony of any witness not actually called. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 4. That should Defendant wish to introduce any drawings, photographs, videos, or motion picture film into evidence, that the same be tendered to Court and opposing counsel, outside of the presence of the jury, and shown or exhibited to determine its relevance and suitability for introduction into evidence prior to and before informing the jury as to its existence or its tender into evidence. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 5. Further, that Defendant not mention or state to the jury the probable testimony of a person who is absent, unavailable, or not called to testify in this cause. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 6. Soliciting an expert opinion from any person without first establishing that person’s qualifications to render the opinion inquired about. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 7. Offering in the presence and hearing of the jury to stipulate to any fact or issue. Plaintiff is willing to stipulate to many routine matters, but this should be done under circumstances to expedite the trial rather than to make Defendant appear magnanimous or to make Plaintiff appear tedious or wasteful of the jury’s time. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 8. Whether Plaintiff’s attorney represents Plaintiff on a contingent fee or cash fee or any other kind of fee basis and who is paying the expenses in connection with this litigation. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 9. Whether or not Plaintiff has ever made prior or subsequent claims for money for injuries of any nature, or whether or not said claim resulted in settlement or lawsuits being filed or tried. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 2 10. Offering any evidence or questioning regarding any civil litigation any Plaintiffs, attorney, or healthcare provider has been involved in. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 11. That no mention be made of the effect or result of a claim, suit or judgment upon medical costs, insurance rates, premiums, charges, either generally or as particularly applied to the party in question as the result of this or any other matter. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 12. Any reference that Plaintiff sought to exclude evidence during pretrial discovery or that the Court has ruled concerning the scope of pretrial discovery. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 13. That Plaintiff received any benefits of any kind or character from a collateral source. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 14. Any mention be it through argument or an attempt to elicit testimony, of whether Plaintiff had health insurance at any time or whether health insurance has or has not paid any of Plaintiff’s medical expenses. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 15. That the Defendant’s representatives or counsel not refer to, display, or quote from any books, treatises, articles, pamphlets, manuals, or documents without previously establishing that the items were produced timely in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, disclosure, subpoenas duces tecum, or other discovery. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 16. That any recovery by the Plaintiff would or would not be subject to federal income tax or other form of taxation. (See, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. McFerrin, 291 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1956). Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 17. That the Defendant be instructed not to make demands or requests before the jury for matters found or contained in Plaintiff’s file, which would include statements, pleadings, photographs, videotapes, and other documents, nor to demand a request for further or additional medical examinations, physical demonstrations, or other requests during the course of the trial and in the presence of the jury. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 3 Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 18. Any suggestion or inference that is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s burden of proof in a civil action seeking damages. In this regard, Plaintiff moves the Court to instruct defense counsel from suggesting that before Plaintiff may prevail, the Defendant must be found guilty, or that they believe beyond reasonable doubt, or that the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant’s actions were of an intentional wrong, because such references are confusing and misleading to the jury, and designed to encourage the imposition of legal standards in this case different than those imposed by the law. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 19. That Defendant’s counsel not mention any of Plaintiff’s medical history that is not relevant to the issues to be determined by the jury in this case. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 20. Any reference to Plaintiff’s right to recover pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, which conflicts with or is different than the instructions which the jury will receive from the Court as part of its fact finding obligations on the issue of damages. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 21. That Defendant’s counsel not express their personal opinions regarding the case. Wallace v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App. – Texarkana 1968, writ refused n.r.e.). Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 22. Any reference, mention, argument, or inference to the jury that Plaintiff’s injuries could not have occurred from the incident made the basis of this lawsuit without introducing expert testimony establishing same. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995). Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 23. Whether any of Plaintiff’s medical providers have been guaranteed payment out of the settlement or verdict in this matter or that a Letter of Protection has been provided to the healthcare provider. Such evidence is not relevant since Plaintiff will remain personally liable for all medical expenses incurred regardless of the outcome of this litigation. Furthermore, the probative value of such evidence, if any, is far outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 4 24. Offering evidence or attempting to elicit testimony that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by any conduct of any third-party health care provider unless such allegations are supported by properly qualified expert medical testimony establishing that the third-party healthcare provider: (1) undertook a mode or form of treatment which a reasonable and prudent health care provider would not have undertaken under the same or similar circumstances; and (2) that such conduct proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff. Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1977). Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 25. That Plaintiff’s attorneys had sent or referred Plaintiff to any physician. Such information is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the case. Further such information inquires into communication between the attorney and client and Plaintiff hereby claims the attorney-client privilege. See In Re Avila, 22 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2000) (dissenting opinion denying petition for writ of mandamus). Further, the introduction of any such evidence is offered solely for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the treating medical providers by suggesting that there is a monetary interest and bias of the witnesses. To offer any such impeachment evidence other than through the direct examination of each, individual medical witness is improper and strictly prohibited by Texas Rule of Evidence 613. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 26. That any of Plaintiff’s past medical expenses that have been established by a TRCP § 18.001 affidavit are either: (a) not reasonable at the time and place that the service was provided, or (b) that the service was not necessary. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 27. That Plaintiff has been involved in any subsequent vehicle accidents. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 28. Whether Plaintiff did or did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the collision. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 29. That Defendant not mention or elicit any answer from Plaintiff that would inquire into communication privileged by the attorney/client relationship, including but not limited to, matters concerning the time or circumstances under which Plaintiff sought or obtained medical treatment. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 5 30. Any questions to Plaintiff regarding the billing practices of healthcare providers and/or whether they have ever received a bill or paid any medical expenses. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 31. Any insinuation, testimony, questions, reference, suggestion, demonstration or use of exemplars suggesting the wreck occurred in a manner for which there is no evidence (i.e. Plaintiff darted out in front of Defendant or Defendant was faced with a sudden emergency, etc.). Such testimony is not supported by the evidence, is far more prejudicial than probative and amounts to hearsay under TRE 801. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ 32. Any mention be it through argument or an attempt to elicit testimony, of the name(s) of the law firm(s) which Plaintiff retained to represent her in the pursuant of her claims arising out of the motor vehicle collision that forms the basis of this suit. Granted __________ Denied __________ Agreed __________ Respectfully submitted, DOUGLAS LAW FIRM, PLLC /s/ Eric Douglas ERIC DOUGLAS eric@lawdouglas.com Texas Bar No. 24097620 P.O. Box 632271 Irving, Texas 75063 Ph: (214) 301-0336 Fax: (214) 245-5910 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 28, 2024 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all known counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: T. Cass Keramidas Keramidas Law Firm 801 E. Campbell Road, Suite 625 Richardson, Texas 75081 cass@keramidaslaw.com /s/ Eric Douglas ERIC DOUGLAS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 7 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. Eric Douglas on behalf of Eric Douglas Bar No. 24097620 eric@lawdouglas.com Envelope ID: 85016470 Filing Code Description: Motion - In Limine Filing Description: Status as of 2/29/2024 11:36 AM CST Associated Case Party: FREDDIE MASON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Cass Keramidas efiling@keramidaslaw.com 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT ERIC DOUGLAS eric@lawdouglas.com 2/28/2024 3:49:06 PM SENT