Motion in Limine Evidentiary in MARCUS RICHARDSON vs. WILLIAM CLINTON NARAMORE, et al| Trellis.Law

On May 28, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Richardson, Marcus, and Naramore, Janet Ezell, Naramore, William Clinton, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
1/5/2023 4:21 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Dorothy Strogen DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-21-06850

MARCUS RICHARDSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
JANET EZELL NARAMORE, §
Defendant. § 192M) JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, Defendant Janet Ezell Naramore (“Defendant”) and ﬁles this Motion in

Limine and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

Defendant moves the Court for an Order, prior to the voir dire examination of the jury

panel, Plaintiff Marcus Richardson (“Plaintiff”), his attorneys and representatives, and all

witnesses called on behalf of Plaintiff to refrain from any mention or interrogation, directly or

indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, including the offering of documentary evidence, concerning

the matters set forth herein in Exhibit “A.” If Plaintiff’s attorney wishes to propose a theory of

admissibility concerning these matters, Defendant requests the Court to order that Plaintiff’s

attorney ﬁrst request a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective

jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause.

II.

The matters set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,

are not admissible in evidence for any purpose and have no bearing on the issues in controversy

herein or the rights of the parties in this case, or constitute matters as to which the probative value

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 1 0F 12
1624968.1
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or

misleading the jury.

III.

If Plaintiff or his attorneys introduce information concerning such matters into the trial of

this case through their own testimony, remarks, or exhibits, or through the remarks or testimony

of their witnesses, irreparable harm will be caused to the Defendant’s presentation of her case and

ability to obtain a fair trial, which no instruction by the Court would cure. Therefore, should any

of such matters be brought to the attention of the jury, directly or indirectly, Defendant would be

compelled to ﬁle a motion for mistrial.

IV.

In an effort to avoid such prejudice and possible mistrial, Defendant requests that the Court,

by entering the Order attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, prohibit Plaintiff and his counsel from

offering any of such evidence without ﬁrst asking consent to approach the bench, and requesting

from the Court, out of the presence of the jury, a ruling on the admissibility thereof.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant requests that this Motion

in Limine be granted and that the Court sign and enter the Order attached hereto as Exhibit “B”

consistent with this Motion.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 2 0F 12
1624968.1
Respectfully submitted,

By (7wa
DAVID J. MgirziER
Texas Bar No.13982550
dmetzler@cowlesthompson.com

COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C.
901 Main Street, Suite 3900
Dallas, Texas 75202-3746
(214) 672-2000 (Telephone)
(214) 672-2020 (Telecopier)

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 5th day of January 2023, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing document was delivered Via e-ﬁling to all counsel of record.

(1224,00 H5:
Dxym J. Myrz JER

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 3 0F 12
1624968.1
EXHIBIT “A”
1.
Insurance Coverage

The fact that Defendant is or is not 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 Defendant. TEX. R. EVID. 411; Texas Company v. Betterton, 88 S.W.2d 1039
(Tex. 1936); Paige v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. 1934).