Preview
FILED
7/26/2021 11:01 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Terri Kilgore DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-l9-01883
DONIVAN M.WILLIAMS IN THE 68th DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
VS.
OF
DAN IELA PEREZ,
Defendant
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NOW COMES DAN IELA PEREZ hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," and before any
proceedings before the jury, makes and files this MOTION IN LIMINE, and respectfully
moves the Court to instruct Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s)' counsel to refrain from either directly or
indirectly, upon voir dire examination, opening statement, interrogation of witnesses,
introduction of any evidence, argument, objections before the jury, reading of any portion of the
pleadings, or by any other means or in any other manner, informing the jury, or bringing to the
jury's attention, any of the 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/or
hearing of the jury, and a favorable ruling has been obtained from the Court as to the
admissibility and relevance of any such matters:
1. Insurance. Unless an insurance company is a named Defendant, that the Defendant is or
is not protected, in whole or in part, by liability insurance, or that defense counsel was
retained by, or all or any part of the costs of defense, or of any resulting judgment, are or
will be paid by an insurance company, or any other matter suggesting an involvement of
any insurance company with the defense of the case.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
2. Jurors' Connection with Insurance Industry. Inquiring of potential jurors as to their
present or past employment or connection with the insurance industry, or present or past
connection of any family member with the insurance industry, except that:
a) If a potential juror's juror information card discloses employment in the insurance
industry, such potential juror may be questioned concerning same.
b) Inquiry may be made of potential jurors concerning their experience (or that of
members of their family), if any, reviewing, adjusting or allowing/disallowing
claims, as long as no express reference is made to "insurance."
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Liability or Non-Liabilitv for Judgment. That the named Defendant(s) may or may not
have to pay any resulting judgment.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Collateral Source. That any portion of the damages sought by Plaintiff have been, or
will be, paid by any collateral source, including but not limited to:
a) health and accident or disability insurance.
b) any employee benefit plan, formal or informal, including payment of wages for
time not actually worked.
c) social security or welfare.
d) veterans or other benefits.
e) provisions of medical services free of charge or for less than reasonable and
customary charges, provided that the foregoing does not prohibit reference to
unpaid charges of any health care provider who actually testifies for Plaintiff(s)
(or whose medical records are offered by Plaintiff(s)), or to any letter of
protection securing any such charges.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Retention of Attorney. The time or circumstances under which either party consulted or
retained an attorney provided that if any attorney referred a party to a health care provider
who testifies in the case (or Whose medical records are introduced by such party), such
fact may be a subject of inquiry.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Attorneys' Fees. That any party will have to pay attorneys' fees, or any reference to the
amount or basis of any attorneys' fees, unless a claim for recovery of attorneys' fees in the
case will be submitted to the jury.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Statements of Law regarding 18.001 counter affidavits. Plaintiff s counsel be
prohibited from making any statements regarding the legal procedures and legal effects
relating to the filing of 18.001 Medical Billing Affidavits under the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code. Specifically, Plaintiff attorney be prohibited from telling the jury
that Defendant did not file counter affidavits. Further, the Plaintiff’s counsel be
prohibited from stating that the 18.001 Affidavits filed by Plaintiff are undisputed and/or
uncontroverted. Such an argument improperly shifts the burden of proof to the Defense.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Independent Medical Examination. That the Plaintiff offered to, or was or is willing
to, undergo an examination by an independent physician or psychologist.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Criminal Offenses. That any party or witness has been suspected of, arrested for,
charged with or convicted of any criminal offense unless there is evidence of a specific
conviction that the Court has previously ruled is admissible in the case.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
10. Alcohol or Drug Use. That any party or witness uses or abuses alcohol, tobacco, or any
controlled substance, unless and until such alleged use or abuse is shown to be
specifically relevant to the matters in controversy. Amoco Chemicals Corp. vs. Staflord,
663 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. App—Houston [lSt Dist.] 1983, no writ).; TRCE 801(d); TRCE
403.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
11. Settlement Negotiations or Mediation. Any negotiations, offers or demands with
respect to any attempted settlement or mediation. TRCE 408; Beutel vs. Paul, 741
S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
12. Discovery Disputes. Any reference to discovery disputes that arose during the
preparation of the case for trial, any position taken by any party with respect thereto, or to
the Court‘s rulings thereon.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
13. Prior Suits or Claims. That any party has been a party to any prior lawsuit, or has
asserted any prior claim, or that any prior claim has been asserted against a party;
provided that this clause does not prohibit inquiry about a prior injury that may have been
the subject of a claim, as distinguished from the claim, suit or settlement with reference
thereto, if the nature of injuries claimed in the present suit make the same relevant.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
14. Q; Parte Statements of Witnesses. Any reference to any ex parte statement of any
Witness 0r alleged witness, other than an adverse party or agent of an adverse party,
unless and until such witness has been called to testify and has given testimony
conflicting with such ex parte statement. A deposition or a statement in business or
medical records that have been proved up as required by the Rules of Evidence is not an
ex parte statement.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
15. Testimony of Absent Witlfl. Any statement or suggestion as to the probable
testimony of any Witness or alleged witness who is unavailable to testify, or whom the
party suggesting such testimony does not, in good faith, expect to testify in the trial. If the
party is expected to testify by deposition, this provision does not apply to testimony
contained in the deposition expected to be offered. Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. C0., 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1968, writ re’d n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
16. Reptile Theory. Any use of the “Reptile Theory” method at the trial of this cause,
including in voir dire, opening or closing, and questioning because it violates the Golden
Rule, it encourages jurors to disregard and/or minimize jury instructions, it encourages
jurors to apply improper standards of care, it encourages jurors to improperly evaluate
Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions with the benefit hindsight and it improperly
encourages jurors to act as the “conscience” or guardians of the community rather than
impartial jurors. See Farmbrough v. Waglev, 169 S.W.2d 478, 481-83 (Tex. 1943)
(finding arguments which invoke the Golden Rule or ask jurors to consider a case from
an improper viewpoint, such as putting them in place of a party to decide a case, is
improper because it does not employ the reasonably prudent standard).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
17. Hearsay Medical Opinions. Any hearsay statement offered for the truth of the
statement by an allegedly injured person concerning any diagnosis or medical opinions
communicated to such person by a physician or other health care provider. Such would
be an attempt to introduce before the jury expert testimony without a proper predicate
concerning the expert’s qualifications and abilities to give such testimony.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
18. Photographs and Visual Aids. Showing any documents, photographs or Visual aids to
the jury, or displaying same in such manner that the jury or any member thereof can see
the same, unless and until the same has been tendered to opposing counsel, and has been
admitted in evidence or approved for admission or use before the jury, either by the Court
or by all counsel.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
19. Reguests for Stipulations. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury for a
stipulation to any fact, or that counsel admit or deny any fact.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
20. Reguests for Files. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury that opposing
counsel produce any document or thing, or that opposing counselor any party or witness
exhibit, turn over or allow examination of the contents of any file or briefcase (except
that a party may demand to see a document used by a witness on the stand to refresh
his/her recollection, or that a witness testifies that he/she has used previously to refresh
his/her recollection).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
21. Acceptance 0f responsibility. Plaintiff not make any argument that the Defendant has
failed to take responsibility for the accident or that Defendant has taken no responsibility
or any such similar argument. In addition, Plaintiff will not question Defendant as to
whether Defendant accepts responsibility for the occurrence in question.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
22. Social Cost of Award. Any argument or suggestion that an award of damages will affect
insurance premiums, the price of any goods or services, or the level of taxation.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
23. Hardship or Privation. Any argument or suggestion that a failure to award damages
will cause a Plaintiff(s)’ privation or financial hardship.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
24. Golden Rule. Any argument or suggestion that the jurors should put themselves in the
position of a party. World Wide Tire C0. vs. Brown, 644 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.-
Houston [14th Dist] 1982, writ ref’ d n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
25. Counsel’s Opinion of Credibilitv. Any expression of counsel's personal opinion
regarding the credibility of any witness. Wallace vs. Liberty Mutual Ins. C0., 413 S.W.2d
787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App—Houston 1967, writ refd n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
26. Effect of Answers to Jurv Questions. Any argument that any finding or failure to find
in response to a particular jury question will or will not result in a judgment favorable to
any party. This provision does not bar argument by counsel that a particular jury
question should be answered in a particular way. Cooper vs. Argonaut Insurance C0.,
430 S.W. 2d. 35 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Such argument is
improper under the Texas special verdict system because it advises the jury of the effect
of its answers.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
27. Evidence Not Produced in Discovery Response to a Proper Request. Calling any
witness, or offering any document in evidence, if the identity of such witness or the
document has not been disclosed in response to a proper discovery request. If a party has
a good faith basis to urge that such Witness or document should be received either
because (a) no discovery request properly called for its disclosure, or (b) good cause
existed for failure timely to disclose, such party shall first approach the bench and secure
a ruling thereon. Counsel are advised that to the extent possible or predictable, such
matters should be addressed and a ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for
trial. City of San Antonio vs. Fulcher, 749 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex. App—San Antonio
1988, writ den). TRCP 215.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
28. Obiections to Evidence Not Produced in Discoverv. Any objection based on failure to
disclose evidence in pre-trial discovery. Any party desiring to urge any such objection
shall request to approach the bench and urge such objection outside the hearing of the
jury. To the extent possible or predictable, such matters should be addressed and a ruling
sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for trial, although the objection may be urged
for the record outside the hearing of the jury at the time such evidence is offered in the
event the Court has overruled the objection at pretrial.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
29. Experts not Designated. Calling any expert to testify at trial, other than the experts
expressly identified in response to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure. TRCP 194 and
195; Trubell vs. Patton, 582 S.W. 2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App-Tyler 1979, no writ).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
30. malifving Expert Witness. Calling any witness to testify as an expert without having
first been qualified as an expert for those matters which were disclosed in response to
Request for Disclosure. In addition, prior to the expert stating any opinion he must be
required to disclose the underlying facts or data which forms his “expert” opinion
pursuant to Rule 705 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
31. Prior Automobile Accidents. Any inquiry into or disclosing that the Defendant(s)
has/have been involved in any prior or subsequent automobile accident. Any testimony
regarding previous or subsequent accidents is irrelevant and far too prejudicial to discuss
before the jury.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
32. Prior Speeding Tickets. Any inquiry into or disclosing that the Defendant has ever been
issued any speeding tickets prior to or subsequent to this accident. As the Texas Supreme
Court wrote in Missouri-Kansas—Texas Railroad C0. vs. May, 600 S.W.2d. 755 (Tex.
1980), “as a general rule, evidence of similar acts is inadmissible on the issue of whether
someone was a negligent in doing or not doing a particular act.”
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
33. Available Assets. Any inquiry into or reference to the assets Defendant has available for
investigating, preparing and defending this cause. First Nat’l Bank of Marshall vs.
Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Wimoth
vs. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App—Waco 1953, writ ref’d
n.r.e.).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
34. Affidavits. Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff be prohibited from advising the jury of any
amount of medical bills not properly set out in a timely produced 18.001 affidavit and/or
not admitted into evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
35. Medical Amount. Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff be prohibited from advising the jury
of any amount of medical bills not properly set out in a timely produced 18.001 affidavit
and/or not admitted into evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
36. Investigative Officer’s Opinion. Any inquiry or reference to the fact that the
investigative officer has formed an opinion or determined a cause of the accident or that
one of the drivers was at fault until the qualifications of the officer has been established.
Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. vs. Smoak, 134 S.W. 3rd 880, (Tex. AppiTexarkana, 2004, pet.
denied) (investigating officer's testimony on accident causation was required to be given
by a qualified person in science of accident reconstruction.) See also DeLarue vs. State,
102 S.W.3d 388, Tex. A p.—Houston, [14th Dist] 2003; and Ter—Vartanyan vs. R&R
Freight, Ina, 111 S.W. 3r 779, Tex. App—Dallas, 2003, pet. denied).
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
37. Calculation of Economic Damages. Plaintiff be prohibited from introducing any
evidence, offering any testimony, or making any argument regarding economic damages.
Pursuant to TRCP 194.2, Plaintiff is required to disclose the amount and method of
calculating economic damages. Pursuant to TRCP 193.6, information and material not
disclosed through discovery may not be introduced into evidence.
GRANTED DENIED AGREED
Respectfully submitted,
CHAVEZ LEGAL GROUP
By
EDWARD E. CASTILLO
State Bar No. 24036337
CHAVEZ LEGAL GROUP
11900 N. 26th St, Suite 200
Edinburg TX 78539
972-419-3 800 Telephone
972-239-5046 Facsimile
castillo@chavezlegalgroup.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served in
compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of CiVil Procedure on the 25th day of July,
2021, to:
Joshua Hancock
Ben Abbott & Associates
1934 Pendleton Drive
Garland, TX 75041
972-263-5555
972-682-7586 fax
eSerVice@benabbott.com
W
EDWARD E. CASTILLO
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.
Edward Castillo on behalf of Edward Castillo
Bar No. 24036337
castillo@chavezlegalgroup.com
Envelope ID: 55686340
Status as of 7/27/2021 2:25 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Matthew Moreno 24096082 mmoreno@infidemlaw.com 7/26/2021 11:01 :52 AM SENT
Daniella Alvarado 24109584 daniellaalvarado@ymai|.com 7/26/2021 11:01:52 AM SENT
Edward ECastillo casti||o@chavez|egalgroup.com 7/26/2021 11:01:52 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: DONIVANM.W|LLIAMS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Joshua Hancock eservice@benabbott.com 7/26/2021 11:01 :52 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 7/26/2021 11:01 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Terri Kilgore DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-l9-01883 DONIVAN M.WILLIAMS IN THE 68th DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, VS. OF DAN IELA PEREZ, Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NOW COMES DAN IELA PEREZ hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," and before any proceedings before the jury, makes and files this MOTION IN LIMINE, and respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s)' counsel to refrain from either directly or indirectly, upon voir dire examination, opening statement, interrogation of witnesses, introduction of any evidence, argument, objections before the jury, reading of any portion of the pleadings, or by any other means or in any other manner, informing the jury, or bringing to the jury's attention, any of the 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/or hearing of the jury, and a favorable ruling has been obtained from the Court as to the admissibility and relevance of any such matters: 1. Insurance. Unless an insurance company is a named Defendant, that the Defendant is or is not protected, in whole or in part, by liability insurance, or that defense counsel was retained by, or all or any part of the costs of defense, or of any resulting judgment, are or will be paid by an insurance company, or any other matter suggesting an involvement of any insurance company with the defense of the case. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 2. Jurors' Connection with Insurance Industry. Inquiring of potential jurors as to their present or past employment or connection with the insurance industry, or present or past connection of any family member with the insurance industry, except that: a) If a potential juror's juror information card discloses employment in the insurance industry, such potential juror may be questioned concerning same. b) Inquiry may be made of potential jurors concerning their experience (or that of members of their family), if any, reviewing, adjusting or allowing/disallowing claims, as long as no express reference is made to "insurance." GRANTED DENIED AGREED Liability or Non-Liabilitv for Judgment. That the named Defendant(s) may or may not have to pay any resulting judgment. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Collateral Source. That any portion of the damages sought by Plaintiff have been, or will be, paid by any collateral source, including but not limited to: a) health and accident or disability insurance. b) any employee benefit plan, formal or informal, including payment of wages for time not actually worked. c) social security or welfare. d) veterans or other benefits. e) provisions of medical services free of charge or for less than reasonable and customary charges, provided that the foregoing does not prohibit reference to unpaid charges of any health care provider who actually testifies for Plaintiff(s) (or whose medical records are offered by Plaintiff(s)), or to any letter of protection securing any such charges. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Retention of Attorney. The time or circumstances under which either party consulted or retained an attorney provided that if any attorney referred a party to a health care provider who testifies in the case (or Whose medical records are introduced by such party), such fact may be a subject of inquiry. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Attorneys' Fees. That any party will have to pay attorneys' fees, or any reference to the amount or basis of any attorneys' fees, unless a claim for recovery of attorneys' fees in the case will be submitted to the jury. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Statements of Law regarding 18.001 counter affidavits. Plaintiff s counsel be prohibited from making any statements regarding the legal procedures and legal effects relating to the filing of 18.001 Medical Billing Affidavits under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Specifically, Plaintiff attorney be prohibited from telling the jury that Defendant did not file counter affidavits. Further, the Plaintiff’s counsel be prohibited from stating that the 18.001 Affidavits filed by Plaintiff are undisputed and/or uncontroverted. Such an argument improperly shifts the burden of proof to the Defense. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Independent Medical Examination. That the Plaintiff offered to, or was or is willing to, undergo an examination by an independent physician or psychologist. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Criminal Offenses. That any party or witness has been suspected of, arrested for, charged with or convicted of any criminal offense unless there is evidence of a specific conviction that the Court has previously ruled is admissible in the case. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 10. Alcohol or Drug Use. That any party or witness uses or abuses alcohol, tobacco, or any controlled substance, unless and until such alleged use or abuse is shown to be specifically relevant to the matters in controversy. Amoco Chemicals Corp. vs. Staflord, 663 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. App—Houston [lSt Dist.] 1983, no writ).; TRCE 801(d); TRCE 403. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 11. Settlement Negotiations or Mediation. Any negotiations, offers or demands with respect to any attempted settlement or mediation. TRCE 408; Beutel vs. Paul, 741 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 12. Discovery Disputes. Any reference to discovery disputes that arose during the preparation of the case for trial, any position taken by any party with respect thereto, or to the Court‘s rulings thereon. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 13. Prior Suits or Claims. That any party has been a party to any prior lawsuit, or has asserted any prior claim, or that any prior claim has been asserted against a party; provided that this clause does not prohibit inquiry about a prior injury that may have been the subject of a claim, as distinguished from the claim, suit or settlement with reference thereto, if the nature of injuries claimed in the present suit make the same relevant. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 14. Q; Parte Statements of Witnesses. Any reference to any ex parte statement of any Witness 0r alleged witness, other than an adverse party or agent of an adverse party, unless and until such witness has been called to testify and has given testimony conflicting with such ex parte statement. A deposition or a statement in business or medical records that have been proved up as required by the Rules of Evidence is not an ex parte statement. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 15. Testimony of Absent Witlfl. Any statement or suggestion as to the probable testimony of any Witness or alleged witness who is unavailable to testify, or whom the party suggesting such testimony does not, in good faith, expect to testify in the trial. If the party is expected to testify by deposition, this provision does not apply to testimony contained in the deposition expected to be offered. Sanders v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0., 429 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1968, writ re’d n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 16. Reptile Theory. Any use of the “Reptile Theory” method at the trial of this cause, including in voir dire, opening or closing, and questioning because it violates the Golden Rule, it encourages jurors to disregard and/or minimize jury instructions, it encourages jurors to apply improper standards of care, it encourages jurors to improperly evaluate Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions with the benefit hindsight and it improperly encourages jurors to act as the “conscience” or guardians of the community rather than impartial jurors. See Farmbrough v. Waglev, 169 S.W.2d 478, 481-83 (Tex. 1943) (finding arguments which invoke the Golden Rule or ask jurors to consider a case from an improper viewpoint, such as putting them in place of a party to decide a case, is improper because it does not employ the reasonably prudent standard). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 17. Hearsay Medical Opinions. Any hearsay statement offered for the truth of the statement by an allegedly injured person concerning any diagnosis or medical opinions communicated to such person by a physician or other health care provider. Such would be an attempt to introduce before the jury expert testimony without a proper predicate concerning the expert’s qualifications and abilities to give such testimony. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 18. Photographs and Visual Aids. Showing any documents, photographs or Visual aids to the jury, or displaying same in such manner that the jury or any member thereof can see the same, unless and until the same has been tendered to opposing counsel, and has been admitted in evidence or approved for admission or use before the jury, either by the Court or by all counsel. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 19. Reguests for Stipulations. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury for a stipulation to any fact, or that counsel admit or deny any fact. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 20. Reguests for Files. Any request or demand in the presence of the jury that opposing counsel produce any document or thing, or that opposing counselor any party or witness exhibit, turn over or allow examination of the contents of any file or briefcase (except that a party may demand to see a document used by a witness on the stand to refresh his/her recollection, or that a witness testifies that he/she has used previously to refresh his/her recollection). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 21. Acceptance 0f responsibility. Plaintiff not make any argument that the Defendant has failed to take responsibility for the accident or that Defendant has taken no responsibility or any such similar argument. In addition, Plaintiff will not question Defendant as to whether Defendant accepts responsibility for the occurrence in question. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 22. Social Cost of Award. Any argument or suggestion that an award of damages will affect insurance premiums, the price of any goods or services, or the level of taxation. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 23. Hardship or Privation. Any argument or suggestion that a failure to award damages will cause a Plaintiff(s)’ privation or financial hardship. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 24. Golden Rule. Any argument or suggestion that the jurors should put themselves in the position of a party. World Wide Tire C0. vs. Brown, 644 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist] 1982, writ ref’ d n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 25. Counsel’s Opinion of Credibilitv. Any expression of counsel's personal opinion regarding the credibility of any witness. Wallace vs. Liberty Mutual Ins. C0., 413 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App—Houston 1967, writ refd n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 26. Effect of Answers to Jurv Questions. Any argument that any finding or failure to find in response to a particular jury question will or will not result in a judgment favorable to any party. This provision does not bar argument by counsel that a particular jury question should be answered in a particular way. Cooper vs. Argonaut Insurance C0., 430 S.W. 2d. 35 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Such argument is improper under the Texas special verdict system because it advises the jury of the effect of its answers. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 27. Evidence Not Produced in Discovery Response to a Proper Request. Calling any witness, or offering any document in evidence, if the identity of such witness or the document has not been disclosed in response to a proper discovery request. If a party has a good faith basis to urge that such Witness or document should be received either because (a) no discovery request properly called for its disclosure, or (b) good cause existed for failure timely to disclose, such party shall first approach the bench and secure a ruling thereon. Counsel are advised that to the extent possible or predictable, such matters should be addressed and a ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for trial. City of San Antonio vs. Fulcher, 749 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex. App—San Antonio 1988, writ den). TRCP 215. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 28. Obiections to Evidence Not Produced in Discoverv. Any objection based on failure to disclose evidence in pre-trial discovery. Any party desiring to urge any such objection shall request to approach the bench and urge such objection outside the hearing of the jury. To the extent possible or predictable, such matters should be addressed and a ruling sought at pretrial once the case is assigned for trial, although the objection may be urged for the record outside the hearing of the jury at the time such evidence is offered in the event the Court has overruled the objection at pretrial. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 29. Experts not Designated. Calling any expert to testify at trial, other than the experts expressly identified in response to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure. TRCP 194 and 195; Trubell vs. Patton, 582 S.W. 2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App-Tyler 1979, no writ). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 30. malifving Expert Witness. Calling any witness to testify as an expert without having first been qualified as an expert for those matters which were disclosed in response to Request for Disclosure. In addition, prior to the expert stating any opinion he must be required to disclose the underlying facts or data which forms his “expert” opinion pursuant to Rule 705 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 31. Prior Automobile Accidents. Any inquiry into or disclosing that the Defendant(s) has/have been involved in any prior or subsequent automobile accident. Any testimony regarding previous or subsequent accidents is irrelevant and far too prejudicial to discuss before the jury. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 32. Prior Speeding Tickets. Any inquiry into or disclosing that the Defendant has ever been issued any speeding tickets prior to or subsequent to this accident. As the Texas Supreme Court wrote in Missouri-Kansas—Texas Railroad C0. vs. May, 600 S.W.2d. 755 (Tex. 1980), “as a general rule, evidence of similar acts is inadmissible on the issue of whether someone was a negligent in doing or not doing a particular act.” GRANTED DENIED AGREED 33. Available Assets. Any inquiry into or reference to the assets Defendant has available for investigating, preparing and defending this cause. First Nat’l Bank of Marshall vs. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Wimoth vs. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App—Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 34. Affidavits. Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff be prohibited from advising the jury of any amount of medical bills not properly set out in a timely produced 18.001 affidavit and/or not admitted into evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 35. Medical Amount. Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff be prohibited from advising the jury of any amount of medical bills not properly set out in a timely produced 18.001 affidavit and/or not admitted into evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED 36. Investigative Officer’s Opinion. Any inquiry or reference to the fact that the investigative officer has formed an opinion or determined a cause of the accident or that one of the drivers was at fault until the qualifications of the officer has been established. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. vs. Smoak, 134 S.W. 3rd 880, (Tex. AppiTexarkana, 2004, pet. denied) (investigating officer's testimony on accident causation was required to be given by a qualified person in science of accident reconstruction.) See also DeLarue vs. State, 102 S.W.3d 388, Tex. A p.—Houston, [14th Dist] 2003; and Ter—Vartanyan vs. R&R Freight, Ina, 111 S.W. 3r 779, Tex. App—Dallas, 2003, pet. denied). GRANTED DENIED AGREED 37. Calculation of Economic Damages. Plaintiff be prohibited from introducing any evidence, offering any testimony, or making any argument regarding economic damages. Pursuant to TRCP 194.2, Plaintiff is required to disclose the amount and method of calculating economic damages. Pursuant to TRCP 193.6, information and material not disclosed through discovery may not be introduced into evidence. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Respectfully submitted, CHAVEZ LEGAL GROUP By EDWARD E. CASTILLO State Bar No. 24036337 CHAVEZ LEGAL GROUP 11900 N. 26th St, Suite 200 Edinburg TX 78539 972-419-3 800 Telephone 972-239-5046 Facsimile castillo@chavezlegalgroup.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of CiVil Procedure on the 25th day of July, 2021, to: Joshua Hancock Ben Abbott & Associates 1934 Pendleton Drive Garland, TX 75041 972-263-5555 972-682-7586 fax eSerVice@benabbott.com W EDWARD E. CASTILLO 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. Edward Castillo on behalf of Edward Castillo Bar No. 24036337 castillo@chavezlegalgroup.com Envelope ID: 55686340 Status as of 7/27/2021 2:25 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Matthew Moreno 24096082 mmoreno@infidemlaw.com 7/26/2021 11:01 :52 AM SENT Daniella Alvarado 24109584 daniellaalvarado@ymai|.com 7/26/2021 11:01:52 AM SENT Edward ECastillo casti||o@chavez|egalgroup.com 7/26/2021 11:01:52 AM SENT Associated Case Party: DONIVANM.W|LLIAMS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Joshua Hancock eservice@benabbott.com 7/26/2021 11:01 :52 AM SENT