Preview
CAUSE NO. DC-21-02532
VALENTIN BARBARA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, g
v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER CASHMAN AND g
CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS §
Defendants. g 192”” JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
The matters discussed in the following paragraphs are irrelevant, prejudicial, and
incompetent to any of the material issues in this cause. The injection of these matters into the trial
of this cause by any party, attorney, or Witness would cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’ s cause,
which no instruction by the Court to the jury could cure. Should any of the matters be brought to
the attention of the jury, directly or indirectly, Plaintiff would be compelled to file a motion for
mistrial. Therefore, in an effort to avoid probable prejudice and possible mistrial of this cause,
Plaintiff moves this Court to exclude in limine statements, arguments, and evidence that tend to
show the following:
1. That Plaintiff has or had unrelated, prior or subsequent claims, suits or settlements, or the
resulting amounts; in this connection, Plaintiff does not seek to preclude Defendant from showing
any related injury and the resulting effects to the extent material to this lawsuit, but only object to
the showing of unrelated claims, suits, or settlements for the reason that the same would be
immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this cause and would be incurably prejudicial even
though objections were timely made and sustained. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0. v.Murphree,
357 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1962); Bonham v. Baldeschwiler, 5333 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. Civ. App.—
Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Wright v. Excalibur Ins. C0., 486 S.W.2d 130, 133-135
(Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1972, no writ).
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 1 OF 6
2. Reference to the fact that any other person or entity has not been sued or made a party to
this cause, or further, has been removed from this cause, for the reason that such is not relevant to
any issue in this cause and is prejudicial to Plaintiff. McCarty v. Gappeelberg, 273 S.W.2d 943,
945-948 (Tex. CiV. App.—Fort Worth 1954, writ refd nre)
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
3. That Plaintiff has been accused or found guilty of any misconduct or criminal activity.
Defendant has not given Plaintiff advance written notice of intent to use any alleged prior
conviction of crime and has failed to provide Plaintiff with a fair opportunity to contest the use
of such evidence as required by TEX. R. EVID. 609(f); Houston v. Watson, 376 S.W.2d 23, 33
(Tex. Civ. App—Fort Worth 1964, writ refd n.r.e.).
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
4. That Plaintiff has not called to testify and/or depose any witness equally available to
both Plaintiff and Defendant in this cause. In this connection, Plaintiff moves that Defendant’s
counsel further be instructed not to tender, read from, or refer to any ex parte statement or report
not previously admitted in evidence by the Court, 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 not to suggest to the jury, by argument or otherwise, what would have been the
testimony of any witness not actually called. Texas Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d
403 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ); Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
C0., 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1968, writ refd n.r.e.).
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
5. Any reference, mention, or statement to the jury of the probable testimony of a witness
who is absent, unavailable, or not called to testify in this cause.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 2 0F 6
6. That Plaintiff s attorneys are paid on a contingency fee basis.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
7. Any reference or claim that the county, state, or national court systems are "clogged" or
"back-logged" because of cases the same or similar to Plaintiff’s or cases brought by plaintiffs
against defendants generally. References of this nature are irrelevant and prejudicial. TEX. R.
EVID. 401-403 (1984).
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
8. Any medical opinions offered by counsel or any other persons should be limited to medical
opinions from designated experts.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
9. Any reference to prior medical records, if any exist, that have not been provided to counsel
in discovery and/or if Plaintiff s counsel has been notified of the intent to use such records thirty
(30) days before trial.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
10. Any reference to medical testimony based upon a “possibility” rather than a reasonable
medical probability.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
ll. Any reference to advertising by Shamieh Law, or reference to the types of cases that
Shamieh Law handles. Any such characterization of Plaintiff’ s law firm is irrelevant.
ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 3 0F 6
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
12. Utilizing demonstrative evidence during the voir dire portion of this trial that has not been
pre-marked or pre—admitted because utilizing such is inconsistent with voir dire principles and
further may display potential evidence that the court has not ruled on its admissibility. Further, the
relevance, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in misleading the
jury. TEX. R. EVID. 401 and 403.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
13. Any reference or comment concerning or relating to any hardship of Defendant imposed
by this litigation, including financial, as such is irrelevant and would be offered solely to prejudice
the jury by engendering sympathy for Defendant.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
14. Any and allreferences to medical conditions of Plaintiff other than the injuries at issue.
Mention of unrelated medical problems, including conditions referenced in medical records, would
be irrelevant and an invasion of the Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintiff further requests exclusion
of information contained in Plaintiff s medical records pursuant to TEX. R. EVID. 510.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
15 . Any reference or similar statement suggesting or implying that “anyone can file a lawsuit”
or otherwise characterizing the process of filing a lawsuit as easy. Such statements have no
probative value and would only serve to discredit and/or undermine the lawsuit at hand and unduly
prejudice Plaintiff s claims for relief.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 4 0F 6
16. The fact that any of Plaintiff‘s medical providers have treated with a Letter of Protection
and/or if the client was “referred” to one of the medical clinics by Shamieh Law.
Sustained Overruled Agreed
Modified as follows: Defendant maV ask medical providers about letters of protection, but not
cannot ask the Plaintiff.
17. Any reference to any other lawsuit unrelated to this case involving Plaintiff.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
18. Any reference to or mention of any other car accidents in which Plaintiff has been involved
without first establishing that Plaintiff suffered an injury to a body part at issue in this litigation in
the separate car accident.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
19. Any statement, reference, or insinuation to the relative wealth of the parties.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
20. Any statement, reference, or insinuation that Plaintiff or Defendant do or do not attend
church. This includes eliciting testimony as to what faith church Plaintiff’s family attends, if any.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 5 0F 6
21. Any comments or insinuation that treating providers regularly treat plaintiffs in lawsuit or
called “your attorney’s doctors”, or any similar commentary related to treating providers. This
characterization is false, misleading, and highly prejudicial.
Sustained Overruled Agreed X
Modified as follows:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this day of August, 2022.
PRESIDING JUDGE
ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 6 0F 6
Preview
CAUSE NO. DC-21-02532 VALENTIN BARBARA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, g v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER CASHMAN AND g CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS § Defendants. g 192”” JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE The matters discussed in the following paragraphs are irrelevant, prejudicial, and incompetent to any of the material issues in this cause. The injection of these matters into the trial of this cause by any party, attorney, or Witness would cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’ s cause, which no instruction by the Court to the jury could cure. Should any of the matters be brought to the attention of the jury, directly or indirectly, Plaintiff would be compelled to file a motion for mistrial. Therefore, in an effort to avoid probable prejudice and possible mistrial of this cause, Plaintiff moves this Court to exclude in limine statements, arguments, and evidence that tend to show the following: 1. That Plaintiff has or had unrelated, prior or subsequent claims, suits or settlements, or the resulting amounts; in this connection, Plaintiff does not seek to preclude Defendant from showing any related injury and the resulting effects to the extent material to this lawsuit, but only object to the showing of unrelated claims, suits, or settlements for the reason that the same would be immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this cause and would be incurably prejudicial even though objections were timely made and sustained. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0. v.Murphree, 357 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1962); Bonham v. Baldeschwiler, 5333 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. Civ. App.— Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Wright v. Excalibur Ins. C0., 486 S.W.2d 130, 133-135 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1972, no writ). Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 1 OF 6 2. Reference to the fact that any other person or entity has not been sued or made a party to this cause, or further, has been removed from this cause, for the reason that such is not relevant to any issue in this cause and is prejudicial to Plaintiff. McCarty v. Gappeelberg, 273 S.W.2d 943, 945-948 (Tex. CiV. App.—Fort Worth 1954, writ refd nre) Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 3. That Plaintiff has been accused or found guilty of any misconduct or criminal activity. Defendant has not given Plaintiff advance written notice of intent to use any alleged prior conviction of crime and has failed to provide Plaintiff with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence as required by TEX. R. EVID. 609(f); Houston v. Watson, 376 S.W.2d 23, 33 (Tex. Civ. App—Fort Worth 1964, writ refd n.r.e.). Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 4. That Plaintiff has not called to testify and/or depose any witness equally available to both Plaintiff and Defendant in this cause. In this connection, Plaintiff moves that Defendant’s counsel further be instructed not to tender, read from, or refer to any ex parte statement or report not previously admitted in evidence by the Court, 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 not to suggest to the jury, by argument or otherwise, what would have been the testimony of any witness not actually called. Texas Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ); Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0., 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1968, writ refd n.r.e.). Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 5. Any reference, mention, or statement to the jury of the probable testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable, or not called to testify in this cause. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 2 0F 6 6. That Plaintiff s attorneys are paid on a contingency fee basis. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 7. Any reference or claim that the county, state, or national court systems are "clogged" or "back-logged" because of cases the same or similar to Plaintiff’s or cases brought by plaintiffs against defendants generally. References of this nature are irrelevant and prejudicial. TEX. R. EVID. 401-403 (1984). Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 8. Any medical opinions offered by counsel or any other persons should be limited to medical opinions from designated experts. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 9. Any reference to prior medical records, if any exist, that have not been provided to counsel in discovery and/or if Plaintiff s counsel has been notified of the intent to use such records thirty (30) days before trial. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 10. Any reference to medical testimony based upon a “possibility” rather than a reasonable medical probability. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: ll. Any reference to advertising by Shamieh Law, or reference to the types of cases that Shamieh Law handles. Any such characterization of Plaintiff’ s law firm is irrelevant. ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 3 0F 6 Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 12. Utilizing demonstrative evidence during the voir dire portion of this trial that has not been pre-marked or pre—admitted because utilizing such is inconsistent with voir dire principles and further may display potential evidence that the court has not ruled on its admissibility. Further, the relevance, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in misleading the jury. TEX. R. EVID. 401 and 403. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 13. Any reference or comment concerning or relating to any hardship of Defendant imposed by this litigation, including financial, as such is irrelevant and would be offered solely to prejudice the jury by engendering sympathy for Defendant. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 14. Any and allreferences to medical conditions of Plaintiff other than the injuries at issue. Mention of unrelated medical problems, including conditions referenced in medical records, would be irrelevant and an invasion of the Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintiff further requests exclusion of information contained in Plaintiff s medical records pursuant to TEX. R. EVID. 510. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 15 . Any reference or similar statement suggesting or implying that “anyone can file a lawsuit” or otherwise characterizing the process of filing a lawsuit as easy. Such statements have no probative value and would only serve to discredit and/or undermine the lawsuit at hand and unduly prejudice Plaintiff s claims for relief. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1N LIMINIE PAGE 4 0F 6 16. The fact that any of Plaintiff‘s medical providers have treated with a Letter of Protection and/or if the client was “referred” to one of the medical clinics by Shamieh Law. Sustained Overruled Agreed Modified as follows: Defendant maV ask medical providers about letters of protection, but not cannot ask the Plaintiff. 17. Any reference to any other lawsuit unrelated to this case involving Plaintiff. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 18. Any reference to or mention of any other car accidents in which Plaintiff has been involved without first establishing that Plaintiff suffered an injury to a body part at issue in this litigation in the separate car accident. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 19. Any statement, reference, or insinuation to the relative wealth of the parties. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: 20. Any statement, reference, or insinuation that Plaintiff or Defendant do or do not attend church. This includes eliciting testimony as to what faith church Plaintiff’s family attends, if any. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 5 0F 6 21. Any comments or insinuation that treating providers regularly treat plaintiffs in lawsuit or called “your attorney’s doctors”, or any similar commentary related to treating providers. This characterization is false, misleading, and highly prejudicial. Sustained Overruled Agreed X Modified as follows: IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this day of August, 2022. PRESIDING JUDGE ORDER 0N PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINIE PAGE 6 0F 6