Preview
FILED
10/28/2022 1:29 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Brandon Keys DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-20-18988
ALSHAWN PORTER THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§
IN
Plaintiff
v. 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DAVID ANTHONY APPLE, JR. AND
FOODLINER, INC.
Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Defendants David Anthony Apple, Jr., Foodliner, Inc. and Berry &
Sons Trucking, LLC, (Defendants), in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and move
the Court for an Order in Limine, restricting opposing counsel, Plaintiff, and witnesses
called on behalf of all parties from mentioning or alluding to certain matters, and in support
of this motion would show as follows:
l.
The matters described in Section Ill below are not admissible in evidence for any
purpose and have no bearing on the issues or the rights of the parties in this case.
ll.
Permitting interrogation of witnesses, comments to jurors or prospective jurors, or
offers of evidence concerning any of these matters would prejudice the jury and
sustaining objections before jurors or prospective jurors to such questions, statements or
evidence will not prevent prejudice but would only serve to reinforce the development of
questionable evidence.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 1
25554
The matters of information made the subject of this Motion are as follows:
1) Any alleged evidence to support a theorv of “neqliqent entrustment" against
Defendant Foodliner, Inc. and/or Berry & Sons Trucking, LLC because this
claim has been the subject of summary judgment.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
2) Any alleged evidence or argument to support claims for negflgent hiring
retaining. traininq or supervision of Defendant David Anthony Apple, Jr. by
Defendant Foodliner, Inc. and/or Berry & Sons Trucking, LLC because
because this claim has been the subject of summary judgment.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
3) Any alleged evidence or argument to support a claim for gross negligence
or punitive damages because this claim has been the subject of summary
judgment.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
4) Any argument or allegation that Defendants are attempting to “avoid
responsibiliy" because Defendants have no responsibility until such time as
the Court might render judgment against them.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
5) Any argument or allegation that Defendants should somehow be held to
DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 2
25554
some standard of conduct that is hiqher than that of the drivers of ordinarv
motor vehicles because Defendants are a truck driver and trucking
company. In this regard, there is no law to support such an allegation. All
drivers are held to the same ordinary negligence standard.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
6) Any allegation or argument that attempts to put the venire or lurv in the place
of Plaintiff or anv other partv to the case.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
7) Any “golden rule” argument.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
3) Any argument or allegation that Defendants should be held to anv standard
of conduct that is set forth in anv emplovee or driver policies or manuals. In
this regard, such an argument or allegation would be exhorting the jury to
ignore the ordinary care standard, which is mandated by law, in favor of
some aspirational higher standard that is not the legal standard. It is an
attempt to hold a truck driver and trucking company to a standard of conduct
that is higher than ordinary care.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
9) Any argument or allegation that Defendants have anv obliqation “to insure"
DEFENDAN TS ' MOTION IN LIMIN Page 3
25554
or “make certain” of anv particglar behavior. In this regard, Defendants are
held only to an ordinary care standard. They are not required to guarantee,
promise, insure or make certain of anything. The law does not require that
level of behavior from anyone. They owe no legal duty to “insure” or “make
certain."
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
10) The fact that Defendants were or were not covered, insured, or otherwise
protected by any policy of insurance at the time of the occurrence made the
basis of this suit. Royas v. Vuocolo, 142 Tex. 152, 177 S.W.2d 962, 962-
964 (1944); Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Acosta, 435
S.W.2d, 539, 549 (Civ. App—Houston, lst Dist. 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex.
R. Evid. 411.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
11) The fact that Defendants filed this Motion in Limine or that the Court has
ruled on any matters contained in this motion or that Defendants have
sought to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of any matters.
Cody v. Mustang Oil Tool Co., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Civ.
App.—Eastland, 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d
766, 769-770 (Civ. Apps—San Antonio, 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex. R. Evid.
402, 403.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 4
25554
12) Any question, reference or statement 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 counsel for any party is sincerely
interested in determining whether there is any such connection for purposes
of exercising jury strikes, they can do so by asking the panel if they have
ever worked in a job that required them to deal with bodily injury or property
damage claims without stating the type of job or employer, which will
provide the relevant information sought and at the same time avoid harming
Defendants by expressly 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.); Miller v. Wood, 476 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 ref'd n.r.e.).
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
13) lnterrogating 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 such inquiry improperly
injects the implication of insurance into this suit. Defendants further move
the Court to instruct counsel and parties to not make any such reference of
similar import in arguments before the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 411; Griffin v.
Caste/I, 313 S.W.2d 149, 155-56 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1958, writ ref‘d
n.r.e.)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 5
25554
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
14) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly before the jury, any demands
or requests for matters found or contained within Defendants counsel’s files
which would include statements, pleadings, photographs, and other
documents. Tex. R. Evid. 503.
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
15) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, the fact that Defendants have
made, considered, or promised to accept, or will make, consider or accept,
any offer to compromise or settle the claims involved in this action; or any
reference to the fact that settlement discussions have taken place; or make
any reference to the statements or conduct of any party in connection with
such settlement discussions. Information concerning settlement offers or
acceptances, or the conduct or statements of parties during settlement
negotiations or discussions is irrelevant to proving the validity or invalidity
of any claim in this action or any other issue to this action and is strictly
prohibited by Tex. R. Evid. Rule 408; Brannan v. Texas Employers Ins.
Assoc, 248 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. 1952).
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
16) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, any matter which constitutes
advice to the jury on the effect of its answers to the questions posed in the
Court’s Charge, regardless of whether such advice is a direct or indirect
comment, reference, suggestion, or argument. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; Majic
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 6
25554
Chef, Inc. v. Sibley, 56 .W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio
1977, wi ref'd n.r.e.).
SUSTAINED ___
OVERRULED ___
17) Any idcation of any kind that Defendat may not have to pay any
judgment entered in this case. Tex. R. Evid. 411; Rojas v. Vuoco/o, 177
S.W.2d 962, 964 (Tex. 1944); Paige v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234, 246 (Tex.
1934).
SUSTAINED _ OVERRULED _____
18) Any suggestion that any insurance company or any representative of an
insurance company may have or did investigate this claim. Tex. R. Evid.
411; Rojas v. Vuocolo, 177 S.W.2d 962, 964 (Tex. 1944); Paige v. Thomas,
71 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Tex. 1934).
SUSTAINED __
OVERRULED _
19) Any reference to Defendants’ counsel as an “insurance lawyer,” or any other
reference or term or phrase which would inject insurance into the trial.
SUSTAINED _ OVERRULED __
20) Any question, statement, or reference that Plaintiff may not receive the full
amount awarded because of attorneys‘ fees, expenses, or taxes. Such
information is irrelevant and not necessary to determine the existence or
extent of liability, injuries, or damages, if any, in this case and therefore is
irrelevant. Tex. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403. Chicago R.I. & G. RY. Co. v.
Johnson, 111 S.W. 758 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908).
SUSTAINED OVERRULED
DEFENDAN TS ’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 7
25554
21) Any question, statement, or reference regarding the violation or alleged
violation of any laws, statutes, ordinnes, or regulations, for the reason
that such are matters of law for the Court only, negligence per se has not
been pled by Plaintiff, and such references would be highly prejudicial,
inflammatory, speculative, and not probative of any issue to be considered
by the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403. Guereque v. Tho son, 953
S.W.2d 458 (Tex. App.-EI Paso 1997, writ denied); Simms v. Southwest Tex
Methodist Hospifal, 535 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Civ. App—San Antonio 1976, writ
ref’d n.r.e.).
SUSTAINED _____
OVERRULED ___
IV.
Defendants further request that, if counsel for Plaintiff proposes a theory of
admissibility concerning the matters set out in Section Ill. the Court order that counsel for
Plaintiff first request a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all
prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants request that this Court
order that counsel for the Plaintiff, and through counsel, any and all witnesses called on
behalf of the Plaintiff be instructed to refrain from any mention or interrogation, directly or
indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, including the offering of documentary evidence,
regarding any of the matters set forth in this Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
DOWNS & STANFORD, P.C.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 8
25554
BYIM fl
mms
S ar |
V
o. 06088200
2001 Bryan Street, Suite 4000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 748-7900
Facsimile: (214) 748-4530
E-mail: idowns@downsstanford.com
E-mail: ikaltenbach@downsstanford.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
c_ERTIFICAT§ 0F sgrzvucg
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
served upon all counsel of record on this the 28TH day of October 2022, in accordance
with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
f a
JA WWNSZ/
DEFENDAN TS ’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 9
25554
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.
Jennifer French on behalf of Jay Downs
Bar No. 6088200
jfrench@downsstanford.com
Envelope ID: 69676869
Status as of 10/28/2022 2:49 PM CST
Associated Case Party: FOODLINER INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jay Downs jdowns@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Rodney M.Patterson rpatterson@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Marnissa Moseley marnissam@attorneykohm.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Jamie Graddick jgraddick@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Charlotte Sterling csterling@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM ERROR
Associated Case Party: DAVIDANTHONYAPPLE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jay Downs jdowns@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ALSHAWN PORTER
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
David S.Kohm lit-efile@attorneykohm.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 10/28/2022 1:29 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Brandon Keys DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-20-18988 ALSHAWN PORTER THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§ IN Plaintiff v. 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAVID ANTHONY APPLE, JR. AND FOODLINER, INC. Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants David Anthony Apple, Jr., Foodliner, Inc. and Berry & Sons Trucking, LLC, (Defendants), in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and move the Court for an Order in Limine, restricting opposing counsel, Plaintiff, and witnesses called on behalf of all parties from mentioning or alluding to certain matters, and in support of this motion would show as follows: l. The matters described in Section Ill below are not admissible in evidence for any purpose and have no bearing on the issues or the rights of the parties in this case. ll. Permitting interrogation of witnesses, comments to jurors or prospective jurors, or offers of evidence concerning any of these matters would prejudice the jury and sustaining objections before jurors or prospective jurors to such questions, statements or evidence will not prevent prejudice but would only serve to reinforce the development of questionable evidence. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 1 25554 The matters of information made the subject of this Motion are as follows: 1) Any alleged evidence to support a theorv of “neqliqent entrustment" against Defendant Foodliner, Inc. and/or Berry & Sons Trucking, LLC because this claim has been the subject of summary judgment. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 2) Any alleged evidence or argument to support claims for negflgent hiring retaining. traininq or supervision of Defendant David Anthony Apple, Jr. by Defendant Foodliner, Inc. and/or Berry & Sons Trucking, LLC because because this claim has been the subject of summary judgment. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 3) Any alleged evidence or argument to support a claim for gross negligence or punitive damages because this claim has been the subject of summary judgment. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 4) Any argument or allegation that Defendants are attempting to “avoid responsibiliy" because Defendants have no responsibility until such time as the Court might render judgment against them. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 5) Any argument or allegation that Defendants should somehow be held to DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 2 25554 some standard of conduct that is hiqher than that of the drivers of ordinarv motor vehicles because Defendants are a truck driver and trucking company. In this regard, there is no law to support such an allegation. All drivers are held to the same ordinary negligence standard. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 6) Any allegation or argument that attempts to put the venire or lurv in the place of Plaintiff or anv other partv to the case. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 7) Any “golden rule” argument. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 3) Any argument or allegation that Defendants should be held to anv standard of conduct that is set forth in anv emplovee or driver policies or manuals. In this regard, such an argument or allegation would be exhorting the jury to ignore the ordinary care standard, which is mandated by law, in favor of some aspirational higher standard that is not the legal standard. It is an attempt to hold a truck driver and trucking company to a standard of conduct that is higher than ordinary care. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 9) Any argument or allegation that Defendants have anv obliqation “to insure" DEFENDAN TS ' MOTION IN LIMIN Page 3 25554 or “make certain” of anv particglar behavior. In this regard, Defendants are held only to an ordinary care standard. They are not required to guarantee, promise, insure or make certain of anything. The law does not require that level of behavior from anyone. They owe no legal duty to “insure” or “make certain." SUSTAINED OVERRULED 10) The fact that Defendants were or were not covered, insured, or otherwise protected by any policy of insurance at the time of the occurrence made the basis of this suit. Royas v. Vuocolo, 142 Tex. 152, 177 S.W.2d 962, 962- 964 (1944); Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Acosta, 435 S.W.2d, 539, 549 (Civ. App—Houston, lst Dist. 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex. R. Evid. 411. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 11) The fact that Defendants filed this Motion in Limine or that the Court has ruled on any matters contained in this motion or that Defendants have sought to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of any matters. Cody v. Mustang Oil Tool Co., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Civ. App.—Eastland, 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766, 769-770 (Civ. Apps—San Antonio, 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex. R. Evid. 402, 403. SUSTAINED OVERRULED DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 4 25554 12) Any question, reference or statement 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 counsel for any party is sincerely interested in determining whether there is any such connection for purposes of exercising jury strikes, they can do so by asking the panel if they have ever worked in a job that required them to deal with bodily injury or property damage claims without stating the type of job or employer, which will provide the relevant information sought and at the same time avoid harming Defendants by expressly 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.); Miller v. Wood, 476 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 ref'd n.r.e.). SUSTAINED OVERRULED 13) lnterrogating 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 such inquiry improperly injects the implication of insurance into this suit. Defendants further move the Court to instruct counsel and parties to not make any such reference of similar import in arguments before the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 411; Griffin v. Caste/I, 313 S.W.2d 149, 155-56 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1958, writ ref‘d n.r.e.) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 5 25554 SUSTAINED OVERRULED 14) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly before the jury, any demands or requests for matters found or contained within Defendants counsel’s files which would include statements, pleadings, photographs, and other documents. Tex. R. Evid. 503. SUSTAINED OVERRULED 15) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, the fact that Defendants have made, considered, or promised to accept, or will make, consider or accept, any offer to compromise or settle the claims involved in this action; or any reference to the fact that settlement discussions have taken place; or make any reference to the statements or conduct of any party in connection with such settlement discussions. Information concerning settlement offers or acceptances, or the conduct or statements of parties during settlement negotiations or discussions is irrelevant to proving the validity or invalidity of any claim in this action or any other issue to this action and is strictly prohibited by Tex. R. Evid. Rule 408; Brannan v. Texas Employers Ins. Assoc, 248 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. 1952). SUSTAINED OVERRULED 16) Mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, any matter which constitutes advice to the jury on the effect of its answers to the questions posed in the Court’s Charge, regardless of whether such advice is a direct or indirect comment, reference, suggestion, or argument. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; Majic DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 6 25554 Chef, Inc. v. Sibley, 56 .W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1977, wi ref'd n.r.e.). SUSTAINED ___ OVERRULED ___ 17) Any idcation of any kind that Defendat may not have to pay any judgment entered in this case. Tex. R. Evid. 411; Rojas v. Vuoco/o, 177 S.W.2d 962, 964 (Tex. 1944); Paige v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234, 246 (Tex. 1934). SUSTAINED _ OVERRULED _____ 18) Any suggestion that any insurance company or any representative of an insurance company may have or did investigate this claim. Tex. R. Evid. 411; Rojas v. Vuocolo, 177 S.W.2d 962, 964 (Tex. 1944); Paige v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Tex. 1934). SUSTAINED __ OVERRULED _ 19) Any reference to Defendants’ counsel as an “insurance lawyer,” or any other reference or term or phrase which would inject insurance into the trial. SUSTAINED _ OVERRULED __ 20) Any question, statement, or reference that Plaintiff may not receive the full amount awarded because of attorneys‘ fees, expenses, or taxes. Such information is irrelevant and not necessary to determine the existence or extent of liability, injuries, or damages, if any, in this case and therefore is irrelevant. Tex. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403. Chicago R.I. & G. RY. Co. v. Johnson, 111 S.W. 758 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908). SUSTAINED OVERRULED DEFENDAN TS ’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 7 25554 21) Any question, statement, or reference regarding the violation or alleged violation of any laws, statutes, ordinnes, or regulations, for the reason that such are matters of law for the Court only, negligence per se has not been pled by Plaintiff, and such references would be highly prejudicial, inflammatory, speculative, and not probative of any issue to be considered by the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403. Guereque v. Tho son, 953 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. App.-EI Paso 1997, writ denied); Simms v. Southwest Tex Methodist Hospifal, 535 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Civ. App—San Antonio 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). SUSTAINED _____ OVERRULED ___ IV. Defendants further request that, if counsel for Plaintiff proposes a theory of admissibility concerning the matters set out in Section Ill. the Court order that counsel for Plaintiff first request a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants request that this Court order that counsel for the Plaintiff, and through counsel, any and all witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiff be instructed to refrain from any mention or interrogation, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, including the offering of documentary evidence, regarding any of the matters set forth in this Motion. Respectfully submitted, DOWNS & STANFORD, P.C. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE Page 8 25554 BYIM fl mms S ar | V o. 06088200 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 748-7900 Facsimile: (214) 748-4530 E-mail: idowns@downsstanford.com E-mail: ikaltenbach@downsstanford.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS c_ERTIFICAT§ 0F sgrzvucg This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served upon all counsel of record on this the 28TH day of October 2022, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. f a JA WWNSZ/ DEFENDAN TS ’ MOTION IN LIMINE Page 9 25554 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. Jennifer French on behalf of Jay Downs Bar No. 6088200 jfrench@downsstanford.com Envelope ID: 69676869 Status as of 10/28/2022 2:49 PM CST Associated Case Party: FOODLINER INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jay Downs jdowns@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Rodney M.Patterson rpatterson@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT Marnissa Moseley marnissam@attorneykohm.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT Jamie Graddick jgraddick@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT Charlotte Sterling csterling@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM ERROR Associated Case Party: DAVIDANTHONYAPPLE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jay Downs jdowns@downsstanford.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT Associated Case Party: ALSHAWN PORTER Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status David S.Kohm lit-efile@attorneykohm.com 10/28/2022 1:29:31 PM SENT