Motion in Limine Evidentiary in ROSIA WILLIAMS vs. ANTHONY ESPINOZA| Trellis.Law

On August 20, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Williams, Rosia, and Espinoza, Anthony, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
1/19/2023 6:40 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Lafonda Sims DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-21-11276
ROSIA WILLIAMS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
V. § 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
ANTHONY ESPINOZA § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Anthony Espinoza, Defendant herein, and ﬁles this Motion in Limine in

the above-styled and numbered cause, and would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

Defendant, Anthony Espinoza, moves the Court for an Order, prior to the voir dire

examination of the jury panel in this cause, that Plaintiff, Rosia Williams, and her attorneys and

representatives and any and all witnesses called on behalf of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’ s counsel and

witnesses, be instructed 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 attorneys wish to propose a theory of admissibility

concerning these matters, Defendant requests the Court to order that opposing counsel ﬁrst must

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

ultimately selected in this cause.

The matters set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference

would not be admissible evidence for any purpose on proper and timely objection because they

have no rational relationship to any probable or controlling fact issue in dispute nor do they have

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 1
10000.1 1 15/troby
a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the detelmination of the

action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

III.

Permitting interrogation of Witnesses, comments to jurors, or prospective jurors, or offers

of evidence concerning any of the matters set forth in Exhibit "A" would prejudice the jury and

sustaining objections to such questions, statements or evidence introduced by counsel or witnesses

will not prevent prejudice, but will reinforce the development of questionable evidence.

IV.

Further, the probative value of the matters set forth in the Exhibit "A" is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury and

as such should not be admissible for any purpose in the cause and to permit the mentioning of such

matters would prejudice the jury even with sustaining of any objection to such matters.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Anthony Espinoza, Defendant herein,

requests that this Motion in Limine be granted and an appropriate Order signed and entered by the

Court consistent with this Motion.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 2
10000.1 1 15/ troby
Respectfully submitted,

THE LECRONE LAW FIRM, PC
Wall Street Plaza
123 North Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090
Tel: 903.813.1900
Fax: 903.813.1944

By: /s/9vtarkﬂ. ‘I‘eague
MARK A. TEAGUE
State Bar No. 24003039
SELENE DOMINGUEZ PENA
State Bar No. 24106929
JOHN W. BREEZE
State Bar No. 00796248
HILLARY LUCKETT CLARK
State Bar No. 24077714
ALEXANDRIA K. CARPENTER
State Bar No. 24101596
RHONDA D. HOLCOMB
State Bar No. 24099024
BLAISE S. WILCOTT
State Bar No. 24086481
eservice@lecronelaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 19th day of January, 2023, the foregoing instrument was
forwarded to the following counsel of record:

Mr. Rogelio Guerrero
BEN ABBOTT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1934 Pendleton Drive
Garland, Texas 75041
TEL: 972.263.5555
FAX: 972.682.7586
eservice@benabbott.com

/s/ Mark ﬂ. Teague
MARK A. TEAGUE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 3
10000.1 1 15/ troby
EXHIBIT "A"
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 0r 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
Co. 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.

2.
Connectjon 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 Plaintiff‘s 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 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 interj ecting 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 refd n.r.e.); Green v. Ligon, 190 S.W.2d 742
(Tex. Civ. App—Fort Worth 1945, writ refd n.r.e.).

3.
Answer Damage Issue "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. Griﬁith 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 ref‘d n.r.e.); Ulmer v. Mackey, 242 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. Civ. App—Fort Worth 1951, writ refd
n.r.e.).

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.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 4
10000.1 1 lS/troby
5.
Settlement Offers

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.

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, 0r 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, Ina, 656 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex. App—Beaumont 1983, writ refd n.r.e.).

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 Plaintiff‘s 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 C0. 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.).

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.

9.
Testimony of Expert Not Previously 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 OF 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.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 5
10000.1 1 15/ troby
10.
Prior Claims or Lawsuits Against Defendant's Exnerts 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.
Parc-Oz'l 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 refd n.r.e.), rev'd on other grounds, 551 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. 1977).

1 1.

Financial, Accmﬂing 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 m 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.
1 970).

12.
Comment on Discovery

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.

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.

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. EVID. 401-403
(1984).

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 6
10000.1 1 15/ troby
15.
Relationship Between Defendant an(_l DefeMt's Attorlﬂ
Any statement, reference, commentor 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.

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.).

17.
Questioning Defendant's Attorneys

Asking questions to Defendant's counsel in front of the jury. TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 401-403
(1 984).

18.
Attorneys' 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.

19.
Reference to Deposition Questions Not Answered

to questions asked in depositions to which the Court sustained objections,
Any reference
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).
20.
Effect of Answers to Questions in Court's Charge to Jurv

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 7
10000.1 1 15/ troby
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.

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 Co., 364
S.W.2d 766, 769-770 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio, 1963, writ refd n.r.e.).

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. Apkaallas 1978, writ refd 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 Plaintiffs counsel about liability insurance would be highly prejudicial to this
Defendant. Mendoza, supra; TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 403.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 8
10000.1 1 15/ troby
24.
Natgre of Defendant's Cognsel'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.

25.
Size or Locale of Defelilant'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 it practices, the number of branch ofﬁces, or that its
principal ofﬁce location.

26.
Employment of Defense Counsel

Any reference to when or how Defendant employed defense counsel.

27.
S_ubseq1_lent Remedial Measm

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.

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.

29.
Hypothetical Questions

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

30.
Misconduct or Criminal Activig

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 9
10000.1 1 15/ troby
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 trial of this cause.

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.

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 35 7(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.)

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
1 8 .002).

34.
Cell Phone Use and_/0r Cell Phone Recorrk

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.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 10
10000.1 1 15/ troby
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.

Terri Roby on behalf of Mark Teague
Bar No. 24003039
terri@lecronelaw.com
Envelope ID: 71966177
Status as of 1/20/2023 11:18 AM CST

Associated Case Party: ANTHONY ESPINOZA

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 1/19/2023 6:40:11 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Griffin Scheumack 24097168 legal@mytexasfirm.com 1/ 19/2023 6:40:11 PM SENT
Griffin Schemack eservice@benabbott.com 1/19/2023 6:40:11 PM SENT
Selene DominguezPena selene@lecronelaw.com 1/19/2023 6:40:11 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: ROSIA WILLIAMS

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Rogelio Guerrero eservice@benabbott.com 1/19/2023 6:40:11 PM SENT

Case Info

Judge

FRAZIER, VERETTA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 19, 2023

Case Filing Date

August 20, 2021

County

Parties

ESPINOZA, ANTHONY Defendant
GUERRERO, ROGELIO Attorney for the Defendant
GUERRERO, ROGELIO Attorney for the Plaintiff
SCHEUMACK, GRIFFIN Attorney for the Plaintiff
TEAGUE, MARK Attorney for the Defendant
WILLIAMS, ROSIA Plaintiff
Selene Peña Attorneys for Defendants
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
Molly Kaelin Attorneys for Defendants

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

Motion,Ex Parte: ROSIA WILLIAMS vs. ANTHONY ESPINOZA

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties