Preview
CAUSE NO. 2017-43835
SAM ALAM IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v
ANDREW GOMES, M.D.,
MAHENDRA AGRAHARKAR,
MD, AJAY CHOUDRY, MD, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
NATIONAL INTERVENTIONAL
RADIOLOGY PARTNERS, PLLC,
NIRP MANAGEMENT, LLC,
NIRP PASADENA, PLLC, NIRP
SUGARLAND, PLLC
Defendants.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendants, Andrew Gomes (“Gomes”), Mahendra Agraharkar (“Agraharkar”), Ajay
Choudhry (“Choudhry”), National Interventional Radiology Partners, PLLC (“NIRP”), NIRP
Management, LLC (“NIRP Management”), NIRP Pasadena, PLLC (“NIRP Pasadena”), NIRP
Sugarland, PLLC (“NIRP Sugarland”) (collectively “Defendant hereby and, before the voir dire
examination of the jury panel, and outside the presence and hearing of the jury panel for the trial
of the above styled and numbered cause, opening statements of counsel to the jury, and before the
introduction of any evidence, respectfully moves the Court to instruct by appropriate order
Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and Plaintiff’s witnesses to refrain from making any mention or
interrogation, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, at any stage of the trial of this case,
concerning any of the matters hereinafter set forth, without first approaching the bench and
obtaining a ruling from the Court, outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and
jurors ultimately selected in this cause, in regard to any alleged theory of admissibility of such
matters.
Defendant would show unto the Court that each of said matters are wholly immaterial,
irrelevant, and prejudicial, and there can be no basis at law for the admission of such matters before
the jury, or for the jury to consider such matters in their deliberation. Further, the introduction or
reference to such matters before the jury would be highly prejudicial and would result in an unfair
trial based upon matters of no relevancy in this cause, or any issue to be decided by the jury in this
case. Defendan would and does hereby further request the Court to instruct counsel for the
Plaintiff to in turn instruct any and all of Plaintiff witnesses or representatives that they are not
to talk to or with any of the jury panel or jurors selected to try this case or be found in their presence
to be discussing the matters involved herein in front of the juror or jurors where such conversation
may be heard by such jurors.
Defendants reserve all rights to submit further and additional limine issues at or before the
parties’ formal charge conference, as well as to object to any limine issues proposed by Plaintiff
in this case.
GROUNDS
Unless the Court has ruled that evidence of a specific conviction is admissible, do not
reference that any party or witness has been suspected of; arrested for charged with; or
convicted of any criminal offense.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Do not refer to any discovery disputes, any position taken by a party regarding a discovery
dispute, or the Court’s rulings on discovery disputes.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Unless a witness has been called to testify and testifies in conflict with an ex parte
statement, do not refer to an ex parte statement by any witness or alleged witness. This
does not prohibit questioning about ex parte statements by an adverse party or adverse
party’s agent.
A deposition or statements in business or medical records that have been proven up as
required by the Rules of Evidence are not ex-parte statements.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Do not refer to the probable testimony of any witness or alleged witness who is unavailable
to testify who is not expected to testify at trial. This does not apply to deposition testimony
if the party is expected to testify by deposition.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Any testimony by Plaintiff’s expert(s) about their discussions with another expert. See Tex.
R. Evid. 801, 802; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, (Tex. 1987).
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Any testimony or evidence related to the actions of Defendants after June, 23, 2015 the
date Plaintiff threatened to sue because it is irrelevant to the claim for quantum meruit.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Any testimony or evidence related to National Interventional Radiology Partners, PLLC
(“NIRP”), NIRP Management, LLC (“NIRP Management”), NIRP Pasadena, PLLC
(“NIRP Pasadena”), NIRP Sugarland, PLLC (“NIRP Sugarland”) as these entities were not
even in existence at the time of the relationship between the parties.
COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Pete T. Patterson
Pete T. Patterson
State Bar No. 15603580
PATTERSON, PC
4309 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77006
(713) 874-6444
(713) 874-6445 (Fax)
Email: pete@pyllp.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was
forwarded to all known counsel of record, at their last known address, in the manner required by
the Rules, on this the day of March,
Nicholas Martinez
Nicholas T Martinez, PLLC
1717 Turning Basin Dr., Ste.375
Houston, Texas 77029
Phone: 713.862.0800
Facsimile: 713.862.4003
Email: nmartinez@twmlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
/s/ Pete T. Patterson
PETE T. PATTERSON
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2017-43835 SAM ALAM IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v ANDREW GOMES, M.D., MAHENDRA AGRAHARKAR, MD, AJAY CHOUDRY, MD, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS NATIONAL INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY PARTNERS, PLLC, NIRP MANAGEMENT, LLC, NIRP PASADENA, PLLC, NIRP SUGARLAND, PLLC Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Defendants, Andrew Gomes (“Gomes”), Mahendra Agraharkar (“Agraharkar”), Ajay Choudhry (“Choudhry”), National Interventional Radiology Partners, PLLC (“NIRP”), NIRP Management, LLC (“NIRP Management”), NIRP Pasadena, PLLC (“NIRP Pasadena”), NIRP Sugarland, PLLC (“NIRP Sugarland”) (collectively “Defendant hereby and, before the voir dire examination of the jury panel, and outside the presence and hearing of the jury panel for the trial of the above styled and numbered cause, opening statements of counsel to the jury, and before the introduction of any evidence, respectfully moves the Court to instruct by appropriate order Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and Plaintiff’s witnesses to refrain from making any mention or interrogation, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, at any stage of the trial of this case, concerning any of the matters hereinafter set forth, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court, outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cause, in regard to any alleged theory of admissibility of such matters. Defendant would show unto the Court that each of said matters are wholly immaterial, irrelevant, and prejudicial, and there can be no basis at law for the admission of such matters before the jury, or for the jury to consider such matters in their deliberation. Further, the introduction or reference to such matters before the jury would be highly prejudicial and would result in an unfair trial based upon matters of no relevancy in this cause, or any issue to be decided by the jury in this case. Defendan would and does hereby further request the Court to instruct counsel for the Plaintiff to in turn instruct any and all of Plaintiff witnesses or representatives that they are not to talk to or with any of the jury panel or jurors selected to try this case or be found in their presence to be discussing the matters involved herein in front of the juror or jurors where such conversation may be heard by such jurors. Defendants reserve all rights to submit further and additional limine issues at or before the parties’ formal charge conference, as well as to object to any limine issues proposed by Plaintiff in this case. GROUNDS Unless the Court has ruled that evidence of a specific conviction is admissible, do not reference that any party or witness has been suspected of; arrested for charged with; or convicted of any criminal offense. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Do not refer to any discovery disputes, any position taken by a party regarding a discovery dispute, or the Court’s rulings on discovery disputes. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Unless a witness has been called to testify and testifies in conflict with an ex parte statement, do not refer to an ex parte statement by any witness or alleged witness. This does not prohibit questioning about ex parte statements by an adverse party or adverse party’s agent. A deposition or statements in business or medical records that have been proven up as required by the Rules of Evidence are not ex-parte statements. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Do not refer to the probable testimony of any witness or alleged witness who is unavailable to testify who is not expected to testify at trial. This does not apply to deposition testimony if the party is expected to testify by deposition. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Any testimony by Plaintiff’s expert(s) about their discussions with another expert. See Tex. R. Evid. 801, 802; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, (Tex. 1987). COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Any testimony or evidence related to the actions of Defendants after June, 23, 2015 the date Plaintiff threatened to sue because it is irrelevant to the claim for quantum meruit. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Any testimony or evidence related to National Interventional Radiology Partners, PLLC (“NIRP”), NIRP Management, LLC (“NIRP Management”), NIRP Pasadena, PLLC (“NIRP Pasadena”), NIRP Sugarland, PLLC (“NIRP Sugarland”) as these entities were not even in existence at the time of the relationship between the parties. COURT’S ORDER: GRANTED: _______ AGREED: _______ DENIED: ______ Respectfully submitted, /s/ Pete T. Patterson Pete T. Patterson State Bar No. 15603580 PATTERSON, PC 4309 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 874-6444 (713) 874-6445 (Fax) Email: pete@pyllp.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded to all known counsel of record, at their last known address, in the manner required by the Rules, on this the day of March, Nicholas Martinez Nicholas T Martinez, PLLC 1717 Turning Basin Dr., Ste.375 Houston, Texas 77029 Phone: 713.862.0800 Facsimile: 713.862.4003 Email: nmartinez@twmlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF /s/ Pete T. Patterson PETE T. PATTERSON