Motion in Limine Evidentiary in CRAIG MCWHIRTER vs. JOSEFINA SEGURA PADRON| Trellis.Law

On April 06, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Mcwhirter, Craig, and Padron, Josefina Segura, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
4/22/2024 6:36 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-23-04462

CRAIG MCWHIRTER § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
As Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. § 134m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOSEFINA SEGURA PADRON §
As Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiff, Craig McWhirter, respectﬁllly moves this Honorable Court to instruct

Defendant’s counsel, and Defendant’s witnesses not to mention or bring before the jury,

either directly or indirectly, upon voir dire examination, opening statement, interrogation

of Witnesses, introduction of any evidence, argument, objections before the jury, reading

any portion of the pleadings, or by any other means or in any other manner inform the

jury, or bring to the jury‘s attention, any of these 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 hearing of the jury, and a favorable ruling obtained

from the court concerning the admissibility and relevance of any such matters. TEX. R.

CIV. P. 166; Norfolk S. Ry. C0. v. Bailey, 92 S.W.3d 577, 583 (Tex. App—Austin 2002, no

pet); Huckaby v. A.G. Perry & Son, Ina, 20 S.W.3d 194, 204 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2000, no pet); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.Zd 551, 557 (Tex.

App—Houston [Ist Dist.] 1996), aff’d, 972 s.w.2d 35 (Tex. 1998).

1. Testimony from any expert witness whose credentials have not been proven to

meet both requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence 702: (1) that the witness is

qualiﬁed as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education;

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 1 of 9
and (2) that the witness’s proffered testimony will assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. TEX. R. EVID. 702.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

2. Any testimony, evidence, argument or other reference to any prior or

subsequent civil lawsuits or alleged criminal history of the Plaintiff or any

Witness. Any such history is not relevant, is unfairly prejudicial and could

implicate inadmissible prior bad acts. TEX. R. EVID. 401, 402, 403, 404.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

3. Any comment, evidence, or argument that the parties engaged in settlement

negotiations in this lawsuit. Birchﬁeld v. Texarkana Memorial Hosp, 747,

S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1987); TEX. R. EVID. 408.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
4. Any statement made by Plaintiff or any of his representatives during any

compromise negotiations or mediation that may have taken place with respect

to this lawsuit. TEX. R. EVID. 408.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
5. Any settlement or offer of settlement which has been made or any reference to

the fact that such lawsuit could not be or was not settled, compromised,

resolved, or that Plaintiff never made or refused any reasonable settlement

offer, including any comments that some cases have to be brought to a jury,

that it was necessary to ﬁle this suit, or any similar comments. TEX. R. EVID.

408.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 2 of 9
6. That Defendant be precluded from making reference to objections made by

this Plaintiff in his answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for

production, responses to notices of deposition, and subpoena duces tecum, this

Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions to which objections were made, as well

as any reference to the fact that any of this Plaintiff’ s answers to

interrogatories, responses to request for production, deposition questions, or

subpoena duces tecum were "ordered by the court" or such similar reference

because such matters are irrelevant to any issue of fact and clearly calculated

to prejudice the jury. TEX. R. EVID. 402, 403, 513.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

7. That Defendant’ counsel should be instructed not to make demands or

requests before the jury for matters found or believed to be contained in

Plaintiff’s ﬁle, which would include statements, pleadings, photographs, and

any other documents; or make any other request of Plaintiff or Plaintiff‘s

counsel during the course of this trial and in the presence of the jury since the

only purpose of such request would be to harass and embarrass Plaintiff

before the jury. TEX. R. EVID. 513(b).

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

8. Any reference to any treatise, report, book, article or other hearsay publication

or document without qualiﬁcation of the publication or document under one

of the hearsay exceptions in the Texas Rules of Evidence.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 3 of 9
9. Any documentary evidence requested by Plaintiff to be produced or

supplemented that was not produced or supplemented to Plaintiff within the

time permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to supplement

results in the loss of opportunity to offer testimony. See Morrow v. HE.B.,

Ina, 714 S.W.2d 297 (TeX. 1986); Ramos v. Champlin Petroleum C0,, 750

S.W.2d 873 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied).

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
10. Any testimony, argument or comment to any witness or evidence that

Defendant might attempt to introduce through a fact witness which was not

produced or identiﬁed in response to a discovery request. See, e.g., Gee v.

Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. C0., 765 S.W.2d 394 (TeX. 1989).

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

11. That Defendant be precluded from making reference to the employment

record or employment ﬁle of the Plaintiff because such matters are irrelevant

to any issue of fact and clearly calculated to prejudice the jury. TEX. R.

EVID. 402, 403, 513.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
12. That Defendant be precluded from making reference to any psychiatric or

psychological records of the Plaintiff because such matters are irrelevant to

any issue of fact and clearly calculated to prejudice the jury. TEX. R. EVID.

402, 403, 513.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 4 of 9
13. Soliciting an expert opinion from an expert Without ﬁrst establishing that

person’s qualiﬁcations to render the opinion. E.I. du Pant de Nemours and

C0. v. Robinson, 923 S.W. 2d 549 (Tex. 1995).

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
14. Any evidence or references of any kind that suggests that the injuries

sustained by the Plaintiff were not proximately caused by the accident subject

to this suit. Defendant have not retained or designated any experts to testify to

a reasonable degree of medical probability that Plaintiff’s injuries were not

proximately caused by the crash.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
15 . That all or any part of Plaintiff’s medical treatments, health care or related

treatments have been, or will be, or possibly could be paid by any collateral

source. This includes any questioning as to whether the medical bills have

been paid or will be paid from the jury verdict.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
l6. That Plaintiff’s attorneys have 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 claim the attomey-client privilege. See In Re Avila, 22

S.W. 3d 349 (Tex. 2000) (Hecht, dissenting opinion denying petition for writ

of mandamus).

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 5 of 9
17. Inquiring into or commenting on the circumstances or timing of the

employment of any of Plaintiff‘s counsel, the means by which Plaintiff‘s

counsel may be compensated in this matter, or that the Plaintiff‘s counsel

typically represent Plaintiff in personal injury matters. Additionally, refrain

from commenting on the advertising by any of the Plaintiff’s attorneys. Such

matters are irrelevant to the issues to be decided by the jury and could only

serve to prejudice the jury. Tex. R. EVid. 403.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
18. Any reference or claim that the county, state or national court systems are

“clogged” or “back-logged” because of cases similar to Plaintiff‘s or cases

brought by Plaintiff against Defendant generally. References of this nature

are irrelevant and prejudicial.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
19. That no mention be made of the effect or results of a claim, suit or judgment

upon the insurance rates, premiums, or charges, either generally or as

particularly applied to the party or employer in question as a result of this or

any other matter. Further, that no mention be made of the possible increase in

doing business or prices as a result of a claim, suit, or judgment on Defendant

or others.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
20. That any recovery by the Plaintiff either would or would not be subject to

federal income tax or any other form of taxation. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR.

C0. vs. McFerrin, 291 S.W. 2d 931 (Tex. 1956).

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 6 of 9
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
21. That Defendant’s counsel be instructed not to refer to hearsay or probable

testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable, or not called in this case

and that counsel be instructed not to suggest to the jury, by argument or

otherwise, what would have been the testimony of any witness not actually

called.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
22. Any readings of the comments, inteijections or objections of counsel made in

the course of a deposition.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
23. Any statement by Defendant’s counsel at voir dire or any other stage of the

trial that Defendant had to “hire”, “retain” or otherwise employ counsel to

defend this lawsuit. Any such reference is untrue because Defendant’s

insurance carrier(s) hired counsel for Defendant. If Defendant’s counsel were

allowed to make such a statement, it incorrectly infers that Defendant has no

insurance.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
24. Any indication of any kind that Defendant will personally/individually have to

pay any judgment entered in this case.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
25. Any comment by Defendant’s attorney that informs the jury of the effect of its

answers to the questions in the charge. Magic Chef Inc. v. Sibley, 546

S.W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1977, writ refd n.r.e.).

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 7 of 9
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
26. Not be permitted to indicate the ﬁling of a lawsuit is like playing the lottery or

the Plaintiff is hoping to win the lottery or any such similar prejudicial

statement. Hyundai Motor C0. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743, 756 (Tex. 2006).

TEX. R. EVID. 401, 402, 403, 404, 408.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
27. Not be permitted to show any exhibits not timely and previously provided to

Plaintiff’s counsel. TEX. R. EVID. 401, 402, 403, 404, 408.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
28. Not be permitted to discuss Plaintiff s prior driving history. This should TEX.

R. EVID. 401, 402, 403, 404.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED
29. Not be permitted to ask speculative questions of the Plaintiff. TEX. R. EVID.

401, 402, 403, 404, 701.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

30. Not be permitted to argue the reasonableness and/or necessity of Plaintiff’s

medical expenses. TEX. R. EVID. 18.001.

GRANTED DENIED AGREED

Respectfully submitted,
THE LINE LAW FIRM, PLLC
4131 N. Central Expressway #932
Dallas, Texas 75204

Phone: Tel. 214-821-2882
Fax. 214-821-2191
Email: winston@linelawﬁrm.com

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Page 8 of 9
By:
Winston B. Line, Attorney at Law
SBN: 24068698

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on
April 22, 2024.

By:
Winston B. Line, Attorney at Law

Plaintiff s Motion in Limine Page 9 of 9
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.

Winston Line
Bar No. 24068698
winston@linelawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 86938976
Filing Code Description: Proposed Jury Charge
Filing Description: PLAINTIFFS
Status as of 4/23/2024 10:50 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT
Winston Line WINSTON@IineIawﬁrm.com 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT
Michael Campbell Michael@linelawfirm.com 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT
JOHN ANDREWS JOHN@L|NELAWF|RM.COM 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: JOSEFINASEGURAPADRON

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
T. CassKeramidas cass@keramidaslaw.com 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: CRAIG MCWHIRTER

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Winston B.Line winston@linelawfirm.com 4/22/2024 6:36:56 PM SENT

Case Info

Judge

TILLERY, DALE Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 22, 2024

Case Filing Date

April 06, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: CRAIG MCWHIRTER vs. JOSEFINA SEGURA PADRON

Preview

Case Info

Parties