Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
5/14/2019 11:16 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Darling Tellez
CAUSE NO. DC-16-07145
LEZLIE A. JOHNSTON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMP ANY §
MANAGEMENT, INC., LINCOLN §
PROPERTY COMPANY, LINCOLN §
PROPERTY COMPANY, and LOCH §
ENERGY SQUARE, LP, §
§
Defendants. § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT
DILLON SNOWDEN, Ph.D
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE WILLIAMS:
COME NOW Lincoln Property Company Management, Inc., Lincoln Property Company,
Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc., and Loch Energy Square, LP (collectively
"Defendants" herein), the Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this, their
Response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Dillon Snowden, Ph.D. In
support, Defendants would show the following:
I. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS
Plaintiff complains of several portions of Dr. Snowden' s opinions in this matter, meaning she 1
does not challenge Dr. Snowden's ability to testify on numerous matters pertinent to this case. The
first complaint is that Dr. Snowden is not qualified to opine on Plaintiffs future earnings. The second
1
Plaintiffs Motion consistently refers to Dr. Snowden as "he." Ms. Snowden is a woman.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE 1
is that she is not qualified to opine on medical treatment. The third is Dr. Snowden did not physically
examine Plaintiff and cannot comment on her physical or mental state. As will be shown herein,
Plaintiffs assertions are without merit
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Whether a witness is qualified to offer expert testimony is a matter committed to the trial
court's discretion. United Blood Serv's v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam).
An expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or determine an issue. In re Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296,304 (Tex.
2012).
III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
Plaintiffs challenge to Dr. Snowden is basically aimed at her qualifications to present opinion
testimony on ce1iain topics. Plaintiff does not challenge the underlying reliability of the evidence she
relies upon or the validity of the conclusions she draws from the evidence. Accordingly, Defendants'
response will focus on Dr. Snowden's extensive training and experience and her considerable
education and how they more than qualify her to present the opinions Plaintiff challenges.
A. Qualifications on Future Earnings
Plaintiff does not point to a specific opinion or group of opinions she finds objectionable. Instead,
she complains of Dr. Snowden's listing of her annual income from 2008 to 2015. As Plaintiff admits
in her Motion, Dr. Snowden does not "elaborate on this information at any other point in his [sic]
report." Plaintiff asserts Dr. Snowden is not an expert economist and any testimony "he [sic] may
bring on this topic would amount to noting [sic] more than ipse dixit and speculation."
Plaintiff does not indicate how listing a person's income history constitutes an expert opinion or
that only an economist can list past income history in their reports. Nonetheless, Dr. Snowden is a
.DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE2
vocational counselor who has been approved as a Vocational Expert by the United States Social
Security Administration since 1993 and nationally certified as a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor
since 1992.2 Dr. Snowden also holds a M.S. in Rehabilitation Counselling from the University of
Texas Health Science Center/Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. She has worked as a vocational
counselor at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and All Saints Episcopal Hospital in Fort Worth. She has
also worked as a Senior Rehabilitation Specialist at Intracorp in Dallas and ultimately supervised 14
other vocational counselors at Continental Rehabilitation Resources in Arlington. Since 1992, she
has been in private practice as a vocational counselor and medical case manager.
Vocational counselors are concerned with getting clients in the best possible condition to work
and getting them to work in the most rewarding careers based on their functionality both physical and
mental. This includes identifying the specific therapies and modalities needed to function in the
workplace and in the career chosen by the client and the therapist. To help identify suitable careers,
a vocational counselor uses income information from established sources such as the United States
Department of Labor and the Texas Workforce Commissions to find careers that have the most
income relative to the skills the client has to offer the job market. Thus, wage information is an
important component of a vocational counselor's work.
That said, Dr. Snowden is not offering any testimony, expert or otherwise, on the present value
of any lost future earning, nor is she offering any testimony, expe1i or otherwise, on a discount rate
or the ctment value of a life care plan. As mentioned before, Plaintiff has not identified a specific
opinion or opinions held by Dr. Snowden regarding wages that Plaintiff finds objectionable. Plaintiff
presents no argument or authority that a vocational counselor cannot list a subject's past annual
2
These qualifications are shown in Dr. Snowden's CV, which Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit B to their Motion to
Strike. Defendants incorporate this CV by reference as if set forth verbatim herein.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE3
earnings as part of vocational report. Therefore, Plaintiff's first complaint regarding Dr. Snowden
should be overruled.
B. Qualifications on Opinion on Medical Treatment.
Plaintiff next complains about Dr. Snowden's qualifications to opine that Plaintiff could have
returned to work either before her back surgery or after her back surgery. Plaintiff correctly points
out Dr. Snowden is not a medical doctor. However, one does not have to be a doctor to provide an
opinion whether or not a person can return to work. As discussed above, a vocational counsel is the
person that evaluates a client to determine how to improve their functionality, what jobs they can
perform with that functionality, and what can be done to improve that functionality. 3 Stated more
simply, a vocational counsel is the person that, in conjunction with the client and medical evidence,
helps determine how, where, and when a client goes back to work. Thus, opinions regarding when a
particular person can return to work are at the core of the work of a vocational counselor such as Dr.
Snowden.
In any event, Dr. Snowden's report reflects the medical records and medical opinions that
demonstrated Plaintiff could have returned to work prior to her back surgery. For example, Dr.
Skufca released Plaintiff to go back to work "with restrictions" on April 1, 2015. Subsequently, a
physical therapist recommended Plaintiff return to work with various limitations on time spent
working that would loosen over time until Plaintiff could work for a full eight (8) hours. This medical
evidence is reflected on page 5 of her report. Additionally, Dr. James Scott, a medical doctor board
certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and concluded
3
The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, the national certifying entity for rehabilitation counselors
such as Dr. Snowden, defines the scope of practice as follows: Rehabilitation counseling is a systematic process which
assists persons with physical, mental, developmental, cognitive, and emotional disabilities to achieve their personal,
career, and independent living goals in the most integrated setting possible through the application of the counseling
process.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE4
Plaintiff had suffered minor injuries fi·om the fall and should have fully recovered within a few weeks
with no permanent damages. This is reflected on page 6 of Dr. Snowden' s report.
Similarly, at least one medical doctor that has reviewed Plaintiffs post-surgery medical records
has opined Plaintiff could go back to work. Dr. Stephen Ozanne recommended a "comprehensive
rehabilitation and pain management program to address the psychological aspects" of Plaintiff's
complaints of pain so that she could resume work at home and at suitable employment. This is
reflected on page 6 of Dr. Snowden's report.
Further, Dr. Snowden has noted Plaintiff has not undergone psychological treatment that could
help Plaintiff cope with her claimed conditions and return to work. As noted on page 7 of Dr.
Snowden's report, Plaintiff has a history of sedentary employment, but has made no attempt to
transition back to work. Starting on page 8 of her report, Dr. Snowden specifically references her
experience working with chronic paid patients and getting them back to work. Work is therapy, but
the client has to be motivated to get back to work.
In sum, Dr. Snowden's opinions about Plaintiff's ability to return to work before and after surgery
is supported by medical evidence and/or testimony cited in her report. In addition to her experience
in working with chronic pain clients such as Plaintiff, Dr. Snowden is more than qualified to provide
opinion testimony on Plaintiff's apparent ability to return to work both before and after her surgery.
Plaintiff's second contention should be overruled.
C. Methodology
While Plaintiff had characterized her challenge to Dr. Snowden as going to her qualifications, in
this p01iion of the Motion to Strike, she actually complains Dr. Snowden did not physically examine
her and therefore cannot opine as to her mental or physical state. Plaintiff cites no authority showing
that a vocational counselor such as Dr. Snowden must perform a physical examination of a person
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFl~NDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGES
before providing opinions regarding her condition and ability to return to work. Further, as reflected
by her CV, Dr. Snowden holds a BS in Psychology from Baylor and a Ph.D. in Counseling (with a
minor in Behavioral Medicine) from the University of North Texas. She is certified by the State of
Texas as a Professional Counsellor and as a Supervisor of licensed Professional Counsellors.
Therefore, she is more than qualified by vi1iue of experience, education, training, and state licensure
to provide opinions regarding a subject's mental status and condition.
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the purpose of Dr. Snowden's testimony regarding Plaintiff's
mental condition is not to assist the jury evaluate Plaintiff's testimony, but to help the jury evaluate
(among other things) Plaintiff's refusal to return to work, her claims of pain and mental anguish and
physical impai1ment. Her evaluation of Plaintiff's physical state goes not only to her future damages
(pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment) but also, to a limited extent, her past
medical expenses and whether they are related to the subject fall and medically necessary. To asse1i
Dr. Snowden's testimony will not assist the jury, given her extensive education and forty years'
experience counselling patients and helping injured persons back to work and functioning in society,
is utterly ridiculous. Similarly, ludicrous is Plaintiff's assertion Dr. Snowden has employed an
improper methodology. The use of objective medical records to evaluate the mental and physical
status of a subject is the established methodology for a rehabilitation counselor to perform his or her
job. Plaintiff's third contention should be overruled.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's challenge to Dr. Snowden's qualifications to provide opinions regarding Plaintiff's
vocational status, mental status, and physical status are without merit. Dr. Snowden clearly has the
education, training, and experience to render the opinions she has in this matter. Plaintiff's Motion
to Strike should be overruled in its entirety.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE6
V. PRAYER
For the reasons stated above, Defendants pray Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Strike
Defendants' Expert Dillon Snowden. Defendants further pray for such further relief to which each
Defendant, whether individually or collectively, may be justly entitled, both in law and in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
Isl Clark S. Butler
MICHAEL A. MILLER
State Bar No. 14100650
mmiller(Z1)tmlf1)c.com
CLARKS. BUTLER
State Bar No. 00793437
cbutler(i?)tmlil)c.com
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1950
Dallas, Texas 75219
(469) 916-2552
(469) 916-2555 facsimile
Jessica Z. Barger
State Bar No. 24032706
bargerta)wri2:htcloseban1-er.com
E. Marie Jamison
State Bar No. 24044647
iamison(iz)wrightclosebarger.com
WRIGHT, CLOSE & BARGER, LLP
One Riverway, Suite 2200
Houston, Texas 77056
713.572.4321
713.572.4320 (facsimile)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and c01Tect copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded
to all counsel of record on this 14th of May, 2019, via E-File as follows:
Via E-File
W. Kelly Puls
Mark A. Haney
Christopher G. Lyster
Puls Haney Lyster PLLC
301 Commerce Street, Suite 2900
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Counsel.for Plaintiff
Isl Clark S. Butler
CLARKS. BUTLER
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFPS MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGES
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 5/14/2019 11:16 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Darling Tellez CAUSE NO. DC-16-07145 LEZLIE A. JOHNSTON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § § 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT LINCOLN PROPERTY COMP ANY § MANAGEMENT, INC., LINCOLN § PROPERTY COMPANY, LINCOLN § PROPERTY COMPANY, and LOCH § ENERGY SQUARE, LP, § § Defendants. § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN, Ph.D TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE WILLIAMS: COME NOW Lincoln Property Company Management, Inc., Lincoln Property Company, Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc., and Loch Energy Square, LP (collectively "Defendants" herein), the Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this, their Response to Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Dillon Snowden, Ph.D. In support, Defendants would show the following: I. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS Plaintiff complains of several portions of Dr. Snowden' s opinions in this matter, meaning she 1 does not challenge Dr. Snowden's ability to testify on numerous matters pertinent to this case. The first complaint is that Dr. Snowden is not qualified to opine on Plaintiffs future earnings. The second 1 Plaintiffs Motion consistently refers to Dr. Snowden as "he." Ms. Snowden is a woman. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE 1 is that she is not qualified to opine on medical treatment. The third is Dr. Snowden did not physically examine Plaintiff and cannot comment on her physical or mental state. As will be shown herein, Plaintiffs assertions are without merit II. APPLICABLE LAW Whether a witness is qualified to offer expert testimony is a matter committed to the trial court's discretion. United Blood Serv's v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). An expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine an issue. In re Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296,304 (Tex. 2012). III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS Plaintiffs challenge to Dr. Snowden is basically aimed at her qualifications to present opinion testimony on ce1iain topics. Plaintiff does not challenge the underlying reliability of the evidence she relies upon or the validity of the conclusions she draws from the evidence. Accordingly, Defendants' response will focus on Dr. Snowden's extensive training and experience and her considerable education and how they more than qualify her to present the opinions Plaintiff challenges. A. Qualifications on Future Earnings Plaintiff does not point to a specific opinion or group of opinions she finds objectionable. Instead, she complains of Dr. Snowden's listing of her annual income from 2008 to 2015. As Plaintiff admits in her Motion, Dr. Snowden does not "elaborate on this information at any other point in his [sic] report." Plaintiff asserts Dr. Snowden is not an expert economist and any testimony "he [sic] may bring on this topic would amount to noting [sic] more than ipse dixit and speculation." Plaintiff does not indicate how listing a person's income history constitutes an expert opinion or that only an economist can list past income history in their reports. Nonetheless, Dr. Snowden is a .DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE2 vocational counselor who has been approved as a Vocational Expert by the United States Social Security Administration since 1993 and nationally certified as a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor since 1992.2 Dr. Snowden also holds a M.S. in Rehabilitation Counselling from the University of Texas Health Science Center/Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. She has worked as a vocational counselor at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and All Saints Episcopal Hospital in Fort Worth. She has also worked as a Senior Rehabilitation Specialist at Intracorp in Dallas and ultimately supervised 14 other vocational counselors at Continental Rehabilitation Resources in Arlington. Since 1992, she has been in private practice as a vocational counselor and medical case manager. Vocational counselors are concerned with getting clients in the best possible condition to work and getting them to work in the most rewarding careers based on their functionality both physical and mental. This includes identifying the specific therapies and modalities needed to function in the workplace and in the career chosen by the client and the therapist. To help identify suitable careers, a vocational counselor uses income information from established sources such as the United States Department of Labor and the Texas Workforce Commissions to find careers that have the most income relative to the skills the client has to offer the job market. Thus, wage information is an important component of a vocational counselor's work. That said, Dr. Snowden is not offering any testimony, expert or otherwise, on the present value of any lost future earning, nor is she offering any testimony, expe1i or otherwise, on a discount rate or the ctment value of a life care plan. As mentioned before, Plaintiff has not identified a specific opinion or opinions held by Dr. Snowden regarding wages that Plaintiff finds objectionable. Plaintiff presents no argument or authority that a vocational counselor cannot list a subject's past annual 2 These qualifications are shown in Dr. Snowden's CV, which Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit B to their Motion to Strike. Defendants incorporate this CV by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE3 earnings as part of vocational report. Therefore, Plaintiff's first complaint regarding Dr. Snowden should be overruled. B. Qualifications on Opinion on Medical Treatment. Plaintiff next complains about Dr. Snowden's qualifications to opine that Plaintiff could have returned to work either before her back surgery or after her back surgery. Plaintiff correctly points out Dr. Snowden is not a medical doctor. However, one does not have to be a doctor to provide an opinion whether or not a person can return to work. As discussed above, a vocational counsel is the person that evaluates a client to determine how to improve their functionality, what jobs they can perform with that functionality, and what can be done to improve that functionality. 3 Stated more simply, a vocational counsel is the person that, in conjunction with the client and medical evidence, helps determine how, where, and when a client goes back to work. Thus, opinions regarding when a particular person can return to work are at the core of the work of a vocational counselor such as Dr. Snowden. In any event, Dr. Snowden's report reflects the medical records and medical opinions that demonstrated Plaintiff could have returned to work prior to her back surgery. For example, Dr. Skufca released Plaintiff to go back to work "with restrictions" on April 1, 2015. Subsequently, a physical therapist recommended Plaintiff return to work with various limitations on time spent working that would loosen over time until Plaintiff could work for a full eight (8) hours. This medical evidence is reflected on page 5 of her report. Additionally, Dr. James Scott, a medical doctor board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and concluded 3 The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, the national certifying entity for rehabilitation counselors such as Dr. Snowden, defines the scope of practice as follows: Rehabilitation counseling is a systematic process which assists persons with physical, mental, developmental, cognitive, and emotional disabilities to achieve their personal, career, and independent living goals in the most integrated setting possible through the application of the counseling process. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE4 Plaintiff had suffered minor injuries fi·om the fall and should have fully recovered within a few weeks with no permanent damages. This is reflected on page 6 of Dr. Snowden' s report. Similarly, at least one medical doctor that has reviewed Plaintiffs post-surgery medical records has opined Plaintiff could go back to work. Dr. Stephen Ozanne recommended a "comprehensive rehabilitation and pain management program to address the psychological aspects" of Plaintiff's complaints of pain so that she could resume work at home and at suitable employment. This is reflected on page 6 of Dr. Snowden's report. Further, Dr. Snowden has noted Plaintiff has not undergone psychological treatment that could help Plaintiff cope with her claimed conditions and return to work. As noted on page 7 of Dr. Snowden's report, Plaintiff has a history of sedentary employment, but has made no attempt to transition back to work. Starting on page 8 of her report, Dr. Snowden specifically references her experience working with chronic paid patients and getting them back to work. Work is therapy, but the client has to be motivated to get back to work. In sum, Dr. Snowden's opinions about Plaintiff's ability to return to work before and after surgery is supported by medical evidence and/or testimony cited in her report. In addition to her experience in working with chronic pain clients such as Plaintiff, Dr. Snowden is more than qualified to provide opinion testimony on Plaintiff's apparent ability to return to work both before and after her surgery. Plaintiff's second contention should be overruled. C. Methodology While Plaintiff had characterized her challenge to Dr. Snowden as going to her qualifications, in this p01iion of the Motion to Strike, she actually complains Dr. Snowden did not physically examine her and therefore cannot opine as to her mental or physical state. Plaintiff cites no authority showing that a vocational counselor such as Dr. Snowden must perform a physical examination of a person DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFl~NDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGES before providing opinions regarding her condition and ability to return to work. Further, as reflected by her CV, Dr. Snowden holds a BS in Psychology from Baylor and a Ph.D. in Counseling (with a minor in Behavioral Medicine) from the University of North Texas. She is certified by the State of Texas as a Professional Counsellor and as a Supervisor of licensed Professional Counsellors. Therefore, she is more than qualified by vi1iue of experience, education, training, and state licensure to provide opinions regarding a subject's mental status and condition. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the purpose of Dr. Snowden's testimony regarding Plaintiff's mental condition is not to assist the jury evaluate Plaintiff's testimony, but to help the jury evaluate (among other things) Plaintiff's refusal to return to work, her claims of pain and mental anguish and physical impai1ment. Her evaluation of Plaintiff's physical state goes not only to her future damages (pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment) but also, to a limited extent, her past medical expenses and whether they are related to the subject fall and medically necessary. To asse1i Dr. Snowden's testimony will not assist the jury, given her extensive education and forty years' experience counselling patients and helping injured persons back to work and functioning in society, is utterly ridiculous. Similarly, ludicrous is Plaintiff's assertion Dr. Snowden has employed an improper methodology. The use of objective medical records to evaluate the mental and physical status of a subject is the established methodology for a rehabilitation counselor to perform his or her job. Plaintiff's third contention should be overruled. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's challenge to Dr. Snowden's qualifications to provide opinions regarding Plaintiff's vocational status, mental status, and physical status are without merit. Dr. Snowden clearly has the education, training, and experience to render the opinions she has in this matter. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike should be overruled in its entirety. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE6 V. PRAYER For the reasons stated above, Defendants pray Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Dillon Snowden. Defendants further pray for such further relief to which each Defendant, whether individually or collectively, may be justly entitled, both in law and in equity. Respectfully submitted, THE MILLER LAW FIRM Isl Clark S. Butler MICHAEL A. MILLER State Bar No. 14100650 mmiller(Z1)tmlf1)c.com CLARKS. BUTLER State Bar No. 00793437 cbutler(i?)tmlil)c.com 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1950 Dallas, Texas 75219 (469) 916-2552 (469) 916-2555 facsimile Jessica Z. Barger State Bar No. 24032706 bargerta)wri2:htcloseban1-er.com E. Marie Jamison State Bar No. 24044647 iamison(iz)wrightclosebarger.com WRIGHT, CLOSE & BARGER, LLP One Riverway, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77056 713.572.4321 713.572.4320 (facsimile) COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGE 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and c01Tect copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record on this 14th of May, 2019, via E-File as follows: Via E-File W. Kelly Puls Mark A. Haney Christopher G. Lyster Puls Haney Lyster PLLC 301 Commerce Street, Suite 2900 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Counsel.for Plaintiff Isl Clark S. Butler CLARKS. BUTLER DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFPS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DILLON SNOWDEN PAGES