Motion in Limine Evidentiary in ANDREW CARRILLO vs. WAYMON HARTWELL, et al| Trellis.Law

On September 27, 2021 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Carrillo, Andrew, and Hartwell, Waymon, Hhh Cattle, Llc, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
CAUSE NO. DC-21-14367
ANDREW CARRILLO § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
V. § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
WAYMON HARTWELL AND HHH §
CATTLE, LLC § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

ON THIS DAY, the Court considered the Motion in Limine ﬁled by Defendants, Waymon

Hartwell and HHH Cattle, LLC, in the above-numbered and -styled cause, and after reviewing the

pleadings on ﬁle and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following rulings:

Order on Defendants’ Motion in Limine

l. Motion in Limine #1:
Insurance Coverage

The fact that this Defendant is covered by some form of liability insurance with
respect to the incident in question, for the reason that such fact is entirely immaterial
to any issue in this cause, and any mention or inference thereof, directly or
indirectly, would be extremely harmful and prejudicial to this Defendant. Page v.
Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934); Texas C0. v. Betterton, 126 Tex.
359, 88 S.W.2d 1039 (1936); Rule 411, TEX. R. CIV. EVID.

Further, now that attention has been called to this matter in advance by Defendant's
Motion in Limine, if any such reference is made, it can only be made for the
improper purpose of informing the jury of the existence of liability insurance.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

2. Motion in Limine #2:

Connect_ion With Insurance Ind_ustrv

From inquiring of any member of the venire as to any connection with the insurance
industry, and in this connection would point out to the Court that if Plaintiffs
counsel is sincerely interested in determining whether or not there is any such
connection for purposes of exercising jury strikes, he can do so by asking each

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 1
10000.1 132/troby
individual juror their occupation, past occupations and that of those in their
household, which will provide relevant information and at the same time, avoid
harming this Defendant by interjecting insurance into the case. Brockett v. Tice,
445 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. Civ. App—Houston [1st Dist] 1969, writ ref‘d n.r.e.); A. J.
Miller Trucking C0. v. Wood, 474 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. Civ. App—Tyler 1971, writ
ref‘d n.r.e.); Green v. Ligon, 190 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. Civ. App—Fort Worth 1945,
writ refd n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

3. Motion in Limine #3:

Answer Damage Iss1_le "Regardless of Who Pavs"

From interrogating any member of the venire as to whether they would answer an
issue on damages in accordance with the evidence, regardless of who pays the
damages or when they will be paid, or whether they will ever be paid, or any similar
version of such inquiry, for the reason that the same improperly injects the
implication of insurance and wealth into the suit, and this Defendant further moves
the Court instruct all other counsel not to make any such reference in jury argument
of similar import. Grifﬁth v. Castell, 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 refd n.r.e.); Ulmer v. Mackey, 242 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. Civ.
App—Fort Worth 1951, writ refd n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

4. Motion in Limine #4:

Defendant's Responsibility to Pav Judgment

From making any statement or inference that Defendant would not be ﬁnancially
responsible for the Judgment in the event of an adverse verdict.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

5. Motion in Limine #5:

SGHIGHIBM OHHS

Any compromise and/or settlement offers, negotiations or ﬁnal settlements between
any of the parties. Brannan v. Texas Employers” Ins. Ass’n, 151 Tex. 210, 248
S.W.2d 118 (1952); 29 AM. JR. 2D 681 Evidence § 629.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 2
10000.1 132/troby
COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
6. Motion in Limine #6:

Prior Claims or Lawsuits

From making any reference whatsoever to whether the Defendant has been a
defendant in lawsuits or been involved in claims in the past, that any such incidents
have settled or been tried, or been the subject of any type of reprimand or corrective
action, or that any other incidents, near incidents or other events have occurred at
the same or similar location, whether before or after the ﬁling of this lawsuit.
Missouri Pac. R. C0. v. Cooper, 563 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. 1978); Dallas Ry. &
Terminal Co. v. Farnsworth, 227 S.W.2d 1017, 148 Tex. 584 (1950); Nevauex v.
Park Place Hosp, Inc., 656 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex. App—Beaumont 1983, writ
refd n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

7. Motion in Limine #7:

Failure to Call Equallv Available Witnesses

That Defendant has not called to testify any witness egually available to either party
in this cause. In this connection, Defendant moves that Plaintiffs 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 Defendant, and
that Plaintiffs counsel be instructed not to suggest to the jury, by argument or
otherwise, that would have been the testimony of any witness not actually called.
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 5 59 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 ref‘d n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
8. Motion in Limine #8:

Testimony of Absent Witness

Any reference, mention or statement to the jury of the probable testimony of a
witness who is absent, unavailable or n_ot called to testify in this cause. Texas
Power & Light C0. v. Walker, supra; Sanders v.St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0.,
supra.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 3
10000.1 132/troby
9. Motion in Limine #9:

Testimonv of Expert Not Previouslv Identiﬁed

The operation of any expert testimony of any kind or character of any expert
witness who has not been properly designated in accordance with the TEXAS RULES
0F CIVIL PROCEDURE. Further, any attempt to elicit any testimony from any person
not properly disclosed or designated by the Plaintiff. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-403
(1984); TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a, (1984); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

10. Motion in Limine #10:

Prior Claims or Lawsuits Against
Defendant's Experts or Other Witnesses

Any reference to prior lawsuits or claims ﬁled against any expert witness or other
witness called by Defendant to testify at the trial of this case. TEX. R. CIV. EVID.
401-403 (1984); Irwin v.Pare-Oil Well Servicing C0., 349 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex.
CiV. App.—Texarkana 1961, writ ref‘d n.r.e.). See also French v. Brodsky, 521
S.W.2d 670 (Tex. CiV. App—Houston [lst Dist.] 1975, writ ref‘d n.r.e.), rev'd on
other grounds, 551 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. 1977).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

l l. Motion in Limine #1 1:

Financial, Accounting or Income
Information of Defendant's Expert Witnesses

Any questions or references to the ﬁnancial, accounting or income information,
sources and records, of any expert witness called to testify in behalf of Defendant
at the trial of this case, thﬂ any income received for expert consultation
services in or other litigation or claims. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-403 (1984);
TEX. R. CIV. P. 202; Russell v. Young, 452 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1970).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 4
10000.1 132/troby
12. Motion in Limine #12:
Comment on Discoveﬂ

Any reference to the fact that Defendant or Defendant's attorneys sought to prevent
discovery of evidence during the pre-trial discovery, or after the trial began, through
the assertion of objections, instructions from counsel or privileges. TEX. R. CIV.
EVID. 401-403 (1984); TEX. R. CIV. P. 166b.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

l3. Motion in Limine #13:

Demand Items from Attornevs' Files

That the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys be instructed not to make demands or
requests before the jury for matters found or contained in the ﬁles of Defendant or
Defendant's attorneys which would include statements, pleadings or photographs
and other documents or tangible things. Such matters are privileged or potentially
privileged from disclosure to Plaintiff under TEX. R. CIV. P. Rule 166b; TEX. R.
CIV. EVID. 401-403, 503 (1984); TEX. R. CIV. P. 166b.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

14. Motion in Limine #14:

Request for Stipulation in Jurv Presence

Requesting Defendant or Defendant‘s attorneys to stipulate to either the
admissibility of any evidence or stipulate to any facts or matters in front of the jury.
TEX. R. CIv.Ev1D. 401-403 (1984).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

15. Motion in Limine #15:

Relationship Between Defendant and Defendant's Attorneys

Any statement, reference, comment or question pertaining to the relationship
between Defendant and the attorneys representing Defendant's cause of action, or
to the relationship between the attorneys representing Defendant's cause of action
and any insurance company.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEF ENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 5
10000.1 132/troby
16. Motion in Limine #16:
Lawver-Client Privilege

Any matters or communications that have transacted between the Defendant's
attorneys, both past and present, and the Defendant, including but not limited to,
the terms and conditions of any and all employment contracts and all transactions
connected thereto. In this connection, Defendant claims the lawyer-client privilege
under TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 503. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 503 (1984); Holman v. Herscher,
16 S.W. 984 (Tex. 1891); Foster v. Buchele, 213 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. Civ. App.—
Fort Worth 1948, writ ref‘d n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

17. Motion in Limine #17:

Questioning Defendant's Attorneys

Asking questions to Defendant's counsel in front of the jury. TEX. R. CIV. EVID.
401-403 (1984).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

l8. Motion in Limine #18:

Attornevs' Comments in Deposition

Any reading or reference to comments or statements, other than questions to
Witnesses, contained in any deposition taken in this case because such constitutes
unsworn testimony or statements. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-403 (1984); TEX. R. CIV.
EVID. 801 Hearsay -Deﬁnitions; TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 802 -Hearsay Rule.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

l9. Motion in Limine #19:

Reference to Deposition Questions Not Answered

Any reference to questions asked in depositions to which the Court sustained
objections, since such matters are irrelevant, immaterial, or privileged, and it would
be prejudicial to Defendant to refer to such questions and objections in the presence
of the jury. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-403 (1984).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 6
10000.1 132/troby
20. Motion in Limine #20:

Effect of Answers to Questions in Court's Charge to Jurv

Any statement by Plaintiffs attorneys calculated to inform the Jury of the effect of
their answer to the Instructions and Questions contained in the Court's Charge to
the Jury.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

21. Motion in Limine #21:

Use of Photographs or Motion Pictures

That should Plaintiff wish to introduce any photographs, Videotapes or motion
picture ﬁlm into evidence, the same be tendered to the Court and opposing counsel
outside 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. Such videotape would be inadmissible
under Rule 403, TEX. R. CIV. EVID., because its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Further, such evidence is needlessly
cumulative. Finally, such evidence is hearsay. The matters depicted in such
photographs, videotapes or motion picture ﬁlm would be offered for the truth of the
matters depicted and would therefore constitute hearsay.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

22. Motion in Limine #22:

Referring to Motion in Limine

Reference to the ﬁling of this Motion in Limine or to any ruling by the Court in
response to this Motion, since references are inherently prejudicial and that they
suggest or infer that the movement has sought to prohibit proof or that the Court
has excluded proof of matters damaging to movant's case. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-
403 (1984); Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass'n v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. Civ.
App.—Eastland, 1953, writ refd n.r.e.); Burdz'ck v. York Oil C0., 364 S.W.2d 766,
769-770 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio, 1963, writ ref‘d n.r.e.).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 7
10000.1 132/troby
23. Motion in Limine #23:

Identity of Insurance Carrier

From inquiring about the identity of the liability insurance carrier for Defendant or
any expert Witness called by Defendant, and Whether they have any feeling or belief
that an adverse verdict against the Defendant would affect their insurance rates. In
Mendoza v. Varon, 563 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. CiV. App—Dallas 1978, writ ref‘d
n.r.e.), the court refused to permit plaintiffs counsel to make this inquiry.
Distinguishing the case from Barton Plumbing C0. v. Johnson, 285 S.W.2d 780
(Tex. CiV. App—Galveston 1955, writ refd) where an expert medical witness was
a stockholder and director of defendant's automobile liability insurance carrier, the
court in Mendoza stated that:

In the present case, however, the witness had no direct interest in the outcome of
the litigation, as would an agent, owner or employee of the defendant's insurer.
While it is true that a large judgment against any doctor will probably affect the
insurance rates of other physicians, this interest is remote and any proof of bias
based upon the interest is outweighed by the prejudice by informing the jury of the
defendant's insurance protection.

Any inquiry by Plaintiff‘s counsel about liability insurance would be highly
prejudicial to this Defendant. Mendoza, supra; TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 403.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

24. Motion in Limine #24:

Nature of Defendant's Counsel's Practice

From referring to defense counsel, or any member of their ﬁrm, as one who
regularly represents defendants in personal injury lawsuits or medical malpractice
actions.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
25. Motion in Limine #25:

Size or Locale of Defendant's Counsel's Practice

From referring to the number of attorneys who worked on the case at bar, the size
of defense counsel's law ﬁrm, the proximity in which itpractices, the number of
branch ofﬁces, or that its principal ofﬁce location.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 8
10000.1 132/troby
26. Motion in Limine #26:

Employment of Defense Counsel

Any reference to when or how Defendant employed defense counsel.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

27. Motion in Limine #27:

Subsequent Remedial Measure

That Defendant or any employee or representative of Defendant, after the date of
the alleged incident made the basis of this suit, took any steps that might be
interpreted as safety measures or changes to preclude the occurrence of other
incidents, at or near the same location, whether by way of physical changes or
instructions to employees or otherwise. Said evidence would not be admissible as
a matter of public policy in the State of Texas.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

28. Motion in Limine #28:

Medical Treatises, Journals or Authority

That Plaintiffs counsel not refer to, display in the presence of the jury, or read from
any medical textbook, journal or article of any kind without ﬁrst having established
the same as a reliable authority pursuant to Rule 803(18), TEX. R. CIV. EVID.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
29. Motion in Limine #29:

Hypothetical Questions

That Plaintiffs counsel refrain from asking a fact witness hypothetical questions or
opinions.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 9
10000.1 132/troby
30. Motion in Limine #30:

Misconduct or Criminal Activitv

That Defendant has been accused of, or in fact found guilty of, any misconduct or
criminal activity. Defendant would show the Court that Defendant has never been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude which conviction would be
admissible in impeachment of Defendant's credibility, or that any such conviction
occurred at a time too remote from the present to be relevant to Defendant's
credibility as a witness in the trialof this cause.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

31. Motion in Limine #31:

Lost Wages or Loss of Earning Capacity

Any reference to damages resulting from a loss of wages, present or future, in that
said damages have not been properly or timely supplemented in response to
Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should be precluded from any
evidence of lost wages or loss of earning capacity.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

32. Motion in Limine #32:

Trafﬁc Citation

Any reference to a trafﬁc citation which may or may not have been received by the
defendant related to the subject accident(DeLeon V Louder, 743 S.W. 2d
357(TeX.App.-Amarillo 1987) den. per curiam 754 S.W. 2d 148(Tex.
1988).Additionally, no evidence shall be presented regarding the payment of a
trafﬁc citation unless plaintiff can show that payment was pursuant to a plea in open
court.(Texas Rules Of Evidence 410) ( Cox v Bohman, 683 S.W. 2d 757(Tex. App.
Corpus Christi, ref. n.r.e.)

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 10
10000.1 132/ troby
33. Motion in Limine #33:

Medical and Billing Records

Any reference, mention or statement to the jury regarding Plaintiff‘s medical or
billing records which have not been properly proven up pursuant to Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and Evidence. (Texas Rules of Evidence 803) (Texas Civil
Practices & Remedies Code, §§18.001 and 18.002).

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
34. Motion in Limine #34:

Cell Phone Use and/or Cell Phone Recortﬁ

Any reference, mention or statement to the jury regarding Defendant’s cell phone use
and/or cell phone records before or until a proper foundation has been laid and the records
properly proven up pursuant to the Texas Rules of Evidence.

COURT’S RULING: GRANTED DENIED AGREED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff,

Defendants, and all Counsel shall not mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to

the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of these matters Without ﬁrst obtaining the

permission of the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and further instruct Plaintiff,

Defendants, and all Counsel to warn and caution each of their witnesses to follow the same

instructions of the evidence.

A11 relief not granted herein with respect to the Defendants’ Motion in Limine is HEREBY

DENIED.

Signed on the day of ,2022.

JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 11
10000.1 132/troby

Case Info

Judge

PARKER, TONYA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 25, 2022

Case Filing Date

September 27, 2021

County

Parties

ALVAREZ, ROBERT Attorney for the Plaintiff
CARRILLO, ANDREW Plaintiff
HARTWELL, WAYMON Defendant
HASHEMI, SHAWN S Attorney for the Plaintiff
HHH CATTLE, LLC Defendant
TEAGUE, MARK Attorney for the Defendant
Molly Kaelin Attorneys for Defendants
Seyedeh Harami Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shahed Chalaki Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Johnny Breeze Attorneys for Defendants
Hillary Clark Attorneys for Defendants
Alexandria Carpenter Attorneys for Defendants
Rhonda Holcomb Attorneys for Defendants
Blaise Wilcott Attorneys for Defendants
Selene Peña Attorneys for Defendants

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

Motion-Secondary: ANDREW CARRILLO vs. WAYMON HARTWELL, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties