Preview
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
CAUSE NO. C-3688-19-M
JAY DANIEL VELA AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ESMERALDA VELA §
§
VS. § 476TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
OSCAR VASQUEZ, JR. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA, Plaintiffs in the above-
entitled and numbered cause, and file this their Motion in Limine, requesting the exclusion
of certain irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial matters, pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Evidence, and as grounds for such motion would
show unto the Court the following:
I.
BACKGROUND
The matters enumerated in the following paragraphs are irrelevant, inadmissible,
highly prejudicial and inflammatory, and should not be brought before the jury in any form.
The injection of such matters into the trial of this cause by any party, attorney, or witness
would cause irreparable harm to Movants’ cause, which no instruction by the court to the
jury could cure. Should any of the matters be brought to the attention of the jury, directly
or indirectly, these Movants would be compelled to file a Motion for Mistrial. Therefore, in
an effort to avoid probable prejudice and a possible mistrial in this cause, Plaintiffs JAY
DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA move the Court in limine as set forth below.
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
II.
LIMINE REQUESTS
Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA move the Court to instruct
all attorneys in this case, and order them in turn to instruct all witnesses that they place
upon the stand, not to question, mention, argue or make any statements or references to
any of the following matters within the hearing of the jury or the jury panel, without first
obtaining the Court's express permission, outside of the hearing of the jury or jury panel,
to do so:
(1) That this motion, addressed to the Court, was filed by Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL
VELA and ESMERALDA VELA, or that they sought from the Court the protection or relief
set forth herein.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(2) That Defendant and his counsel not mention or state to the jury the probable
testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable or not called to testify in this cause.
General Motors Corporation v. Bryant, 582 S.W. 2d 521, 527 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [1st
Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(3) That Movants failed to call a witness who was equally available to all parties.
Texas Power & Light Company v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana
1977, no writ).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 2 OF 7
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(4) That Plaintiffs and Defendant have discussed possible compromise and
settlement of this claim including the circumstances, conversations and discussions
surrounding the negotiations, as compromise and settlement discussions are not relevant
to any issue in this lawsuit. Furthermore, even if considered relevant, any probative value
of the compromise and settlement discussions is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading to the jury. Rules 403 & 408,
Texas Rules of Evidence.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(5) That should Defendant wish to introduce any photograph, videotape or
motion picture into evidence, that the same be tendered to the Court and opposing
counsel, outside of the presence of the jury, to determine its relevance and suitability for
introduction into evidence prior to and before informing the jury as to its existence or
showing it to the jury.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(6) That Defendant’s attorneys be prohibited from exhibiting or displaying in any
way before the jury any documents, maps, drawings, photographs, videotapes or motion
pictures, charts or other visual displays, without first allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel a chance
to review the same, and object to same, outside the hearing or viewing of the jury.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 3 OF 7
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(7) Any reference in any manner by Defendant’s counsel suggesting by
argument or otherwise that Plaintiffs have sought to exclude from evidence or proof, any
matters bearing on the issues in this cause or the rights of the parties to this suit. Texas
Employers Ins. Assoc. v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364, (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1953, writ
ref'd n.r.e.); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1963,
writ ref'd n.r.e.).
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(8) Any comment or reference which would imply that Plaintiffs have not fully
complied with any discovery request, interrogatories, requests for production, order of the
Court; or that Plaintiffs have claimed any privilege under the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure as such comments are not relevant and comments or inferences concerning
claims of privilege are prohibited by Rule 513, of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(9) That Defendant be prohibited from introducing into evidence any documents
requested to be produced but not timely produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for
production or subpoenas duces tecum.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 4 OF 7
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
(10) That Defendant be prohibited from introducing into evidence or utilizing any
demonstrative exhibits, including but not limited to, illustrations, photographs or videotapes,
which were not timely produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for production or
subpoenas duces tecum.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(11) Any testimony from any fact witness not timely or properly identified to
Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure to Defendant which sought such
information regarding each person known to have knowledge of any relevant facts
regarding any aspect of this lawsuit. E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Youngblood, 741 S.W.2d 363,
364 (Tex. 1987); Gutierrez v. Dallas Independent School District, 729 S.W.2d 691, 693-94
(Tex. 1987); Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc. 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986); Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989).
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(12) Any testimony from any witness not timely and properly identified as a trial
witness in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory asking for the identity of Defendant’s trial
witnesses.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(13) That no witness or opposing counsel refer to, allude to or make demands
before the jury for matters found or contained in Plaintiffs’ files or the files of Plaintiffs’
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 5 OF 7
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
counsel, including, but not limited to, correspondence, statements, pleadings, depositions,
photographs, exhibits or other documents or tangible things.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(14) That all parties and their attorneys refrain from personal attacks on the
truthfulness or motives of other counsel. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Jones,
361 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1962), writ ref’d n.r.e.).
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(15) Any reference to the Defendant’s counsel's personal beliefs or opinions
concerning the character of the Defendant, Plaintiffs or witnesses, over and above what
is shown by the evidence.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(16) Any reference to the questions ultimately submitted to the jury as Plaintiffs’
questions or Defendant’s questions, or otherwise identify any questions with a particular
party.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
(17) Any statements which tend to inform the jury or the jury panel of the effect
of their answers to the questions given them.
GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED
DENIED
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 6 OF 7
Electronically Filed
9/20/2023 10:59 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and
ESMERALDA VELA pray that the Court grant this Motion in Limine in its entirety; that it
grant the protection and relief herein sought by appropriate order binding on all counsel,
parties, witnesses and other persons appearing herein; and that it grant such other and
further relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P.
P. O. Box 720547
McAllen, Texas 78504
Telephone No.: (956) 631-2891
Telecopier No.: (956) 631-2415
E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com
By: /s/ Ronald G. Hole
Ronald G. Hole
State Bar No.: 09834200
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
JAY DANIEL VELA and ESM ERALDA VELA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ronald G. Hole, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine has, on this the 20th day of September 2023, been served via electronic
transfer through an online filing service, to the following counsel of record:
Defendant’s Attorney
Yadira Villarreal
Villareal Legal Group
The Forum Building-6th Floor
8000 IH-10 West, Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 8230
E-Mail: villalegalgroup@gmail.com
/s/ Ronald G. Hole
Ronald G. Hole
OPV:(PF)VEL-VAS\TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 7 OF 7
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.
Ronald Hole on behalf of Ronald Hole
Bar No. 9834200
Ron@HoleAlvarez.com
Envelope ID: 79780918
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Motion
Status as of 9/21/2023 8:22 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JayDanielVela
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Orfie Vela Orfie@HoleAlvarez.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
RONALD GHOLE MAIL@HOLEALVAREZ.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
YADIRA VILLARREAL VILLALEGALGROUP@GMAIL.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Ron Hole ron@holealvarez.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Esmeralda Vela
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nelda Trevino 24098525 nt@trevino-lawfirm.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Oscar Vasquez, Jr.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Yadira Villarreal 24102610 yadi@vlegalgroup.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Office Assistant office@vlegalgroup.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
VILLARREAL LEGALGROUP SONIA@MCALLENLAWFIRM.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
NELDA TREVINO MAIL@HOLEALVARZ.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan CAUSE NO. C-3688-19-M JAY DANIEL VELA AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT ESMERALDA VELA § § VS. § 476TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § OSCAR VASQUEZ, JR. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA, Plaintiffs in the above- entitled and numbered cause, and file this their Motion in Limine, requesting the exclusion of certain irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial matters, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Evidence, and as grounds for such motion would show unto the Court the following: I. BACKGROUND The matters enumerated in the following paragraphs are irrelevant, inadmissible, highly prejudicial and inflammatory, and should not be brought before the jury in any form. The injection of such matters into the trial of this cause by any party, attorney, or witness would cause irreparable harm to Movants’ cause, which no instruction by the court to the jury could cure. Should any of the matters be brought to the attention of the jury, directly or indirectly, these Movants would be compelled to file a Motion for Mistrial. Therefore, in an effort to avoid probable prejudice and a possible mistrial in this cause, Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA move the Court in limine as set forth below. Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan II. LIMINE REQUESTS Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA move the Court to instruct all attorneys in this case, and order them in turn to instruct all witnesses that they place upon the stand, not to question, mention, argue or make any statements or references to any of the following matters within the hearing of the jury or the jury panel, without first obtaining the Court's express permission, outside of the hearing of the jury or jury panel, to do so: (1) That this motion, addressed to the Court, was filed by Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA, or that they sought from the Court the protection or relief set forth herein. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (2) That Defendant and his counsel not mention or state to the jury the probable testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable or not called to testify in this cause. General Motors Corporation v. Bryant, 582 S.W. 2d 521, 527 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (3) That Movants failed to call a witness who was equally available to all parties. Texas Power & Light Company v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana 1977, no writ). PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 2 OF 7 Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (4) That Plaintiffs and Defendant have discussed possible compromise and settlement of this claim including the circumstances, conversations and discussions surrounding the negotiations, as compromise and settlement discussions are not relevant to any issue in this lawsuit. Furthermore, even if considered relevant, any probative value of the compromise and settlement discussions is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading to the jury. Rules 403 & 408, Texas Rules of Evidence. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (5) That should Defendant wish to introduce any photograph, videotape or motion picture into evidence, that the same be tendered to the Court and opposing counsel, outside of the presence of the jury, to determine its relevance and suitability for introduction into evidence prior to and before informing the jury as to its existence or showing it to the jury. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (6) That Defendant’s attorneys be prohibited from exhibiting or displaying in any way before the jury any documents, maps, drawings, photographs, videotapes or motion pictures, charts or other visual displays, without first allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel a chance to review the same, and object to same, outside the hearing or viewing of the jury. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 3 OF 7 Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (7) Any reference in any manner by Defendant’s counsel suggesting by argument or otherwise that Plaintiffs have sought to exclude from evidence or proof, any matters bearing on the issues in this cause or the rights of the parties to this suit. Texas Employers Ins. Assoc. v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364, (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.). GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (8) Any comment or reference which would imply that Plaintiffs have not fully complied with any discovery request, interrogatories, requests for production, order of the Court; or that Plaintiffs have claimed any privilege under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as such comments are not relevant and comments or inferences concerning claims of privilege are prohibited by Rule 513, of the Texas Rules of Evidence. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (9) That Defendant be prohibited from introducing into evidence any documents requested to be produced but not timely produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for production or subpoenas duces tecum. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 4 OF 7 Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan (10) That Defendant be prohibited from introducing into evidence or utilizing any demonstrative exhibits, including but not limited to, illustrations, photographs or videotapes, which were not timely produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for production or subpoenas duces tecum. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (11) Any testimony from any fact witness not timely or properly identified to Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure to Defendant which sought such information regarding each person known to have knowledge of any relevant facts regarding any aspect of this lawsuit. E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Youngblood, 741 S.W.2d 363, 364 (Tex. 1987); Gutierrez v. Dallas Independent School District, 729 S.W.2d 691, 693-94 (Tex. 1987); Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc. 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986); Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (12) Any testimony from any witness not timely and properly identified as a trial witness in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory asking for the identity of Defendant’s trial witnesses. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (13) That no witness or opposing counsel refer to, allude to or make demands before the jury for matters found or contained in Plaintiffs’ files or the files of Plaintiffs’ PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 5 OF 7 Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan counsel, including, but not limited to, correspondence, statements, pleadings, depositions, photographs, exhibits or other documents or tangible things. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (14) That all parties and their attorneys refrain from personal attacks on the truthfulness or motives of other counsel. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Jones, 361 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1962), writ ref’d n.r.e.). GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (15) Any reference to the Defendant’s counsel's personal beliefs or opinions concerning the character of the Defendant, Plaintiffs or witnesses, over and above what is shown by the evidence. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (16) Any reference to the questions ultimately submitted to the jury as Plaintiffs’ questions or Defendant’s questions, or otherwise identify any questions with a particular party. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED (17) Any statements which tend to inform the jury or the jury panel of the effect of their answers to the questions given them. GRANTED GRANTED AS MODIFIED DENIED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 6 OF 7 Electronically Filed 9/20/2023 10:59 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alessandra Galvan WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs JAY DANIEL VELA and ESMERALDA VELA pray that the Court grant this Motion in Limine in its entirety; that it grant the protection and relief herein sought by appropriate order binding on all counsel, parties, witnesses and other persons appearing herein; and that it grant such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be entitled. Respectfully submitted, HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. P. O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone No.: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier No.: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com By: /s/ Ronald G. Hole Ronald G. Hole State Bar No.: 09834200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JAY DANIEL VELA and ESM ERALDA VELA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ronald G. Hole, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine has, on this the 20th day of September 2023, been served via electronic transfer through an online filing service, to the following counsel of record: Defendant’s Attorney Yadira Villarreal Villareal Legal Group The Forum Building-6th Floor 8000 IH-10 West, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 8230 E-Mail: villalegalgroup@gmail.com /s/ Ronald G. Hole Ronald G. Hole OPV:(PF)VEL-VAS\TRIAL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE - PAGE 7 OF 7 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. Ronald Hole on behalf of Ronald Hole Bar No. 9834200 Ron@HoleAlvarez.com Envelope ID: 79780918 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Motion Status as of 9/21/2023 8:22 AM CST Associated Case Party: JayDanielVela Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Orfie Vela Orfie@HoleAlvarez.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT RONALD GHOLE MAIL@HOLEALVAREZ.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT YADIRA VILLARREAL VILLALEGALGROUP@GMAIL.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT Ron Hole ron@holealvarez.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Esmeralda Vela Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Nelda Trevino 24098525 nt@trevino-lawfirm.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Oscar Vasquez, Jr. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Yadira Villarreal 24102610 yadi@vlegalgroup.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT Office Assistant office@vlegalgroup.com 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status VILLARREAL LEGALGROUP SONIA@MCALLENLAWFIRM.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT NELDA TREVINO MAIL@HOLEALVARZ.COM 9/20/2023 10:59:27 PM SENT