Preview
FILED
12/14/2021 4:41PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY
CAUSE No. Dole-18847
EDUARDO DEL BOSQUE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. §
§
JUAN BARBOSA, §
§
Defendant. §
192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
J &B RENTAL, INC. AND DESOTO §
REGIO, LLC, §
§
Intervenors, §
§
vs. §
§
BEATRIS DEL BOSQUE, §
§
Third-Party Defendant.§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendant, Juan Barbosa (“Barbosa”) and Intervenors, J&B Rental, Inc. (“J &B”)
and DeSoto Regio, LLC (“DeSoto Regio”) (collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to the
the Court’s notice of December 14, 2021, file their Motion in Limine in the above-
entitled and numbered action.
1. Defendants moves the Court for entry of an order instructing Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs counsel and, through such counsel, any and all of the Plaintiffs witnesses, to
refrain from any mention or interrogation, or in any manner attempting to convey to the
jury, either directly or indirectly, including the offering of documentary evidence, any
fact or matter relating to the matters set out in paragraphs 3(A) through (R), without
first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling of the Court outside the presence and
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 1 OF 7
hearing of all prospective jurors or jurors ultimately selected in this cause with regard to
any theory of admissibility of such matters.
2. The matters set out in paragraphs 3(A) through (R) would not be
admissible for any purpose in this action, and objections to such matters alone would
not cure their prejudice, but rather reinforce the impact of such prejudicial matters on
the jurors.
3. The specific evidentiary items which Defendants reasonably anticipates
may or will be presented and/ or offered by the Plaintiff are as follows:
(A) Filing of Motion in Limine. Any comment or reference to the filing
of this motion in limine or to any ruling by the Court in response to this motion. Cody v.
Mustang Oil Tool C0., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 214, 216 (TeX. Civ. App.—Eastland 1980, writ
ref’ d n.r.e.) (references to filing of motion in limine, and ruling thereon, are inherently
prejudicial); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766, 769-70 (TeX. Civ. App—San
Antonio 1963, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (same).
(B) Objections to Discovem Requests. Any comment or reference to
inform the jury in any way or manner, either directly or indirectly, that Defendant has
objected to any discovery request for the reason that such objections are matters for the
Court, and it is well established that counsel may not argue or infer that facts could have
been established but for the objections of the opposing party. TEX. R. EVID. 513(a) & (b);
Texas Employers’ Insurance Assoc. v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. Civ. App.—
Eastland 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
(C) Request to Produce DocumentsZStipulations in Jury’s Presence.
Any attempt to seek or request Defendant’s and/or Intervenors’ attorney to produce
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 2 OF 7
documents, to stipulate to any fact or make any agreement in the presence of the jury.
TEX. R. EVID. 403.
(D) Failure to Call Witness. Any comment or reference that Defendant
and/ or Intervenors failed to call any witness available equally to any party by subpoena
or deposition, unless it is first established outside the presence of the jury that the
subject witness is employed by, or has a special relationship with Defendant and/or
Intervenors. Grogan v. Santos, 617 S.W.2d 312, 316 (TeX. Civ. App.—Tyler 1981, no
writ) (counsel may not comment on the failure of the opposite party to call a witness if
the witness is equally available to both parties); Brazos Graphics, Inc. v. Arvin
Industries, Inc., 574 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
(same), per curiam, 586 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1979); Texas Power and Light Co. v. Walker,
559 S.W.2d 403, 406 (TeX. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ) (same).
(E) Other Lawsuits. Any comment 0r reference that Defendant and/ or
Intervenors have been involved in any other lawsuit or have settled any claim. No prior
lawsuit or claim involving Defendant and/ or Intervenors relate to any 0f the issues to be
tried in this action. Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital, S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.
1987).
(F) Financial AdversiflZProsperig. Any mention of Defendant’s
and/0r Intervenors’ financial prosperity or Plaintist financial adversity. Wilworth v.
Limestone Pond Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. Civ. App. — Waco 1953, writ ref’ d n.r.e.).
(G) Value of Defendant’sllntervenors’ Assets. Any mention of the value
of Defendant’s and/or Intervenors’ assets, which can be an indicator or wealth; such
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 3 OF 7
evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial. First National Bank v. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288,
289-90 (Tex. Civ. App. — Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
(H) Religious Beliefs of Witness. Any mention of a party’s or Witness’
religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is not admissible to enhance or impair credibility. TEX.
R. EVID. 610.
(I) Witnesses Not Designated in Discoveg. Plaintiff be precluded from
introducing any evidenced or from calling any witness not properly designated in
response to a discovery request tendered by Defendant and/ or Intervenors. TEX. R. CIV.
P. 193.6(a); Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992);
Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Tex. 1989) (motion in
limine to exclude unlisted witnesses).
(J) Personal Knowledge Predicate. Plaintiff’s counsel be instructed
that he is not to elicit any evidence from a witness unless the proper predicate is laid as
to personal knowledge. A witness may not testify as to a matter unless evidence is
introduced to demonstrate that he has personal knowledge of the matter(s). TEX. R.
EVID. 602.
(K) Counsel’s Personal Beliefs. Plaintiff’s counsel be instructed that he
is not to mention or state to the jury his personal beliefs (as opposed to stating what the
facts in evidence are) concerning the justice of Plaintiff’s claims or Plaintiff’s right to
recover damages in this case, as same is clearly improper. Wallace v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co., 413 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App—Houston 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 4 OF 7
(L) Comments on Credibilifl of Witnesses. Any comment or reference
from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding his personal opinions about the credibility of any
Witness. See Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167, 168 (TeX. Crim App. 1981).
(M) Requests for Jurv to Assume a Partv’s Position. Any comment or
reference that the jurors should put themselves in the position of Plaintiff. MAPCO, Inc.
v. Farrington, 476 S.W.2d 50, 53—54 (TeX. Civ. App. — Amarillo 1971, writ ref d n.r.e.).
(N) Advice to Jurv on Answers to Charge. Any comment or reference
that constitutes advice to the jury on the effect of its answers to the questions posed in
the submission, regardless of whether such advice is a direct or indirect comment,
reference, suggestion or argument. TEX. R. CIV. P. 277; Magic Chef, Inc. v. Sibley, 546
S.W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (it is improper
under special issue submission for counsel to advise jury of effect of its answers);
Cooper v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 430 S.W.2d 35, 39—40 (TeX. Civ. App—Dallas 1968,
writ ref d n.r.e.) (same).
(O) Settlement Negotiations. Any mention that the parties engaged in
settlement negotiations, including mediation in this action. TEX. R. EVID. 408(a)(1);
Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital, 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987).
(P) Prior Criminal Convictions. Any mention that a party was
convicted of a prior criminal offense. Evidence of criminal convictions is admissible for
impeachment only if the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude and the court
rules that probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. TEX. R. EVID. 609(a); see
Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 879—81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc); Roberts v.
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 5 OF 7
State, No. 05-10-00433-CR, 2011 WL 2860106, *4 (Tex. App. — Dallas Jul. 20, 2011, pet.
denied) (discussing the required balancing test factors).
(Q) Circumstances Underlying Criminal Conviction. Alternatively, any
comment or attempt to introduce evidence of the underlying details of any criminal
conviction which is improper under Rule 609 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Jabari v.
State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 753 (TeX. App. — Houston [lst Dist] 2008, no pet.) (details of
conviction are generally inadmissible under Rule 609); Stevens v. State, 671 S.W.2d 517,
522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (when a prior conviction is admitted, a party may not
inquire into the details of the offense); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Tex. Crim
App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (same). Likewise, evidence should not be admitted to show the
Witness was indicted for a crime greater than the conviction. Yates v. State, 917 S.W.2d
915, 92o (Tex. App. —
Corpus Christi 1996, ref’d n.r.e.); Damian v. State, 881 S.W.2d
102, 113 (Tex. App.
— Houston [lst Dist] 1994, pet. ref’d).
(R) Immigration Status. Any mention that a party’s citizenship and/ or
immigration status. See Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2394 (1982);
Lopez v. State, No. 05—11-01541-CR, 2013 WL 1277883, *2 (Tex. App. — Dallas Feb. 28,
2013, no pet.) (immigration—related evidence inadmissible).
4. Admission of evidence with the categories listed in paragraphs 3(A)
through (R) would prejudice the jury and perhaps result in a verdict based on such
unfair prejudice, rather than the proper evidentiary grounds.
Relief Requested
Defendants respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel,
and any and all of Plaintist witnesses, to refrain from testifying about, eliciting from
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 6 OF 7
any such person, or otherwise mentioning, referring to, interrogating about or in any
manner attempting to convey to the jury, either directly or indirectly, including the
offering of documentary evidence, any fact or matter relating to the matters set forth in
paragraphs 3(A) through (R) without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling
of the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors or jurors selected
in this cause with regard to any theory of admissibility of such matters.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David/M. O’DW
David M. O’Dens
Texas Bar I.D. 15198100
odens@settlepou.com
SettlePou
3333 Lee Parkway, Eighth Floor
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 520-3300
(214) 526-4145 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AND
INTERVENORS
Certificate of Service
This certifies that this document was served in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on December 14, 2021.
/s/ David/M. O’DW
David M. O’Dens
P:\crd\20\2o-o23o\P1eadings\Motion in Limine.doc
DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ 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.
Debra Camacho on behalf of David O'Dens
Bar No. 15198100
dcamacho@settlepou.com
Envelope ID: 60024934
Status as of 12/15/2021 10:12 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
David M.O'Dens odens@settlepou.com 12/14/2021 4:41 :16 PM SENT
April Sandefur asandefur@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Jordan Whiddon jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Daniel Polese 24102364 dpolese@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Pam Oakley poakley@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: EDUARDO DEL BOSQUE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Christopher W.Patton cpatton@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Gregory Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 12/14/2021 4:41PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Martin Reyes DEPUTY CAUSE No. Dole-18847 EDUARDO DEL BOSQUE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § JUAN BARBOSA, § § Defendant. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT J &B RENTAL, INC. AND DESOTO § REGIO, LLC, § § Intervenors, § § vs. § § BEATRIS DEL BOSQUE, § § Third-Party Defendant.§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Defendant, Juan Barbosa (“Barbosa”) and Intervenors, J&B Rental, Inc. (“J &B”) and DeSoto Regio, LLC (“DeSoto Regio”) (collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to the the Court’s notice of December 14, 2021, file their Motion in Limine in the above- entitled and numbered action. 1. Defendants moves the Court for entry of an order instructing Plaintiff, Plaintiffs counsel and, through such counsel, any and all of the Plaintiffs witnesses, to refrain from any mention or interrogation, or in any manner attempting to convey to the jury, either directly or indirectly, including the offering of documentary evidence, any fact or matter relating to the matters set out in paragraphs 3(A) through (R), without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling of the Court outside the presence and DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 1 OF 7 hearing of all prospective jurors or jurors ultimately selected in this cause with regard to any theory of admissibility of such matters. 2. The matters set out in paragraphs 3(A) through (R) would not be admissible for any purpose in this action, and objections to such matters alone would not cure their prejudice, but rather reinforce the impact of such prejudicial matters on the jurors. 3. The specific evidentiary items which Defendants reasonably anticipates may or will be presented and/ or offered by the Plaintiff are as follows: (A) Filing of Motion in Limine. Any comment or reference to the filing of this motion in limine or to any ruling by the Court in response to this motion. Cody v. Mustang Oil Tool C0., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 214, 216 (TeX. Civ. App.—Eastland 1980, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (references to filing of motion in limine, and ruling thereon, are inherently prejudicial); Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d 766, 769-70 (TeX. Civ. App—San Antonio 1963, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (same). (B) Objections to Discovem Requests. Any comment or reference to inform the jury in any way or manner, either directly or indirectly, that Defendant has objected to any discovery request for the reason that such objections are matters for the Court, and it is well established that counsel may not argue or infer that facts could have been established but for the objections of the opposing party. TEX. R. EVID. 513(a) & (b); Texas Employers’ Insurance Assoc. v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. Civ. App.— Eastland 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.). (C) Request to Produce DocumentsZStipulations in Jury’s Presence. Any attempt to seek or request Defendant’s and/or Intervenors’ attorney to produce DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 2 OF 7 documents, to stipulate to any fact or make any agreement in the presence of the jury. TEX. R. EVID. 403. (D) Failure to Call Witness. Any comment or reference that Defendant and/ or Intervenors failed to call any witness available equally to any party by subpoena or deposition, unless it is first established outside the presence of the jury that the subject witness is employed by, or has a special relationship with Defendant and/or Intervenors. Grogan v. Santos, 617 S.W.2d 312, 316 (TeX. Civ. App.—Tyler 1981, no writ) (counsel may not comment on the failure of the opposite party to call a witness if the witness is equally available to both parties); Brazos Graphics, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc., 574 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (same), per curiam, 586 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1979); Texas Power and Light Co. v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d 403, 406 (TeX. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ) (same). (E) Other Lawsuits. Any comment 0r reference that Defendant and/ or Intervenors have been involved in any other lawsuit or have settled any claim. No prior lawsuit or claim involving Defendant and/ or Intervenors relate to any 0f the issues to be tried in this action. Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital, S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987). (F) Financial AdversiflZProsperig. Any mention of Defendant’s and/0r Intervenors’ financial prosperity or Plaintist financial adversity. Wilworth v. Limestone Pond Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. Civ. App. — Waco 1953, writ ref’ d n.r.e.). (G) Value of Defendant’sllntervenors’ Assets. Any mention of the value of Defendant’s and/or Intervenors’ assets, which can be an indicator or wealth; such DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 3 OF 7 evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial. First National Bank v. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288, 289-90 (Tex. Civ. App. — Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). (H) Religious Beliefs of Witness. Any mention of a party’s or Witness’ religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is not admissible to enhance or impair credibility. TEX. R. EVID. 610. (I) Witnesses Not Designated in Discoveg. Plaintiff be precluded from introducing any evidenced or from calling any witness not properly designated in response to a discovery request tendered by Defendant and/ or Intervenors. TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.6(a); Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992); Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Tex. 1989) (motion in limine to exclude unlisted witnesses). (J) Personal Knowledge Predicate. Plaintiff’s counsel be instructed that he is not to elicit any evidence from a witness unless the proper predicate is laid as to personal knowledge. A witness may not testify as to a matter unless evidence is introduced to demonstrate that he has personal knowledge of the matter(s). TEX. R. EVID. 602. (K) Counsel’s Personal Beliefs. Plaintiff’s counsel be instructed that he is not to mention or state to the jury his personal beliefs (as opposed to stating what the facts in evidence are) concerning the justice of Plaintiff’s claims or Plaintiff’s right to recover damages in this case, as same is clearly improper. Wallace v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 413 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App—Houston 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.). DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 4 OF 7 (L) Comments on Credibilifl of Witnesses. Any comment or reference from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding his personal opinions about the credibility of any Witness. See Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167, 168 (TeX. Crim App. 1981). (M) Requests for Jurv to Assume a Partv’s Position. Any comment or reference that the jurors should put themselves in the position of Plaintiff. MAPCO, Inc. v. Farrington, 476 S.W.2d 50, 53—54 (TeX. Civ. App. — Amarillo 1971, writ ref d n.r.e.). (N) Advice to Jurv on Answers to Charge. Any comment or reference that constitutes advice to the jury on the effect of its answers to the questions posed in the submission, regardless of whether such advice is a direct or indirect comment, reference, suggestion or argument. TEX. R. CIV. P. 277; Magic Chef, Inc. v. Sibley, 546 S.W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (it is improper under special issue submission for counsel to advise jury of effect of its answers); Cooper v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 430 S.W.2d 35, 39—40 (TeX. Civ. App—Dallas 1968, writ ref d n.r.e.) (same). (O) Settlement Negotiations. Any mention that the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, including mediation in this action. TEX. R. EVID. 408(a)(1); Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital, 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987). (P) Prior Criminal Convictions. Any mention that a party was convicted of a prior criminal offense. Evidence of criminal convictions is admissible for impeachment only if the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude and the court rules that probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. TEX. R. EVID. 609(a); see Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 879—81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc); Roberts v. DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 5 OF 7 State, No. 05-10-00433-CR, 2011 WL 2860106, *4 (Tex. App. — Dallas Jul. 20, 2011, pet. denied) (discussing the required balancing test factors). (Q) Circumstances Underlying Criminal Conviction. Alternatively, any comment or attempt to introduce evidence of the underlying details of any criminal conviction which is improper under Rule 609 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 753 (TeX. App. — Houston [lst Dist] 2008, no pet.) (details of conviction are generally inadmissible under Rule 609); Stevens v. State, 671 S.W.2d 517, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (when a prior conviction is admitted, a party may not inquire into the details of the offense); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Tex. Crim App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (same). Likewise, evidence should not be admitted to show the Witness was indicted for a crime greater than the conviction. Yates v. State, 917 S.W.2d 915, 92o (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1996, ref’d n.r.e.); Damian v. State, 881 S.W.2d 102, 113 (Tex. App. — Houston [lst Dist] 1994, pet. ref’d). (R) Immigration Status. Any mention that a party’s citizenship and/ or immigration status. See Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2394 (1982); Lopez v. State, No. 05—11-01541-CR, 2013 WL 1277883, *2 (Tex. App. — Dallas Feb. 28, 2013, no pet.) (immigration—related evidence inadmissible). 4. Admission of evidence with the categories listed in paragraphs 3(A) through (R) would prejudice the jury and perhaps result in a verdict based on such unfair prejudice, rather than the proper evidentiary grounds. Relief Requested Defendants respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and any and all of Plaintist witnesses, to refrain from testifying about, eliciting from DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ MOTION IN LIMINE PAGE 6 OF 7 any such person, or otherwise mentioning, referring to, interrogating about or in any manner attempting to convey to the jury, either directly or indirectly, including the offering of documentary evidence, any fact or matter relating to the matters set forth in paragraphs 3(A) through (R) without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling of the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors or jurors selected in this cause with regard to any theory of admissibility of such matters. Respectfully submitted, /s/ David/M. O’DW David M. O’Dens Texas Bar I.D. 15198100 odens@settlepou.com SettlePou 3333 Lee Parkway, Eighth Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 520-3300 (214) 526-4145 (Facsimile) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AND INTERVENORS Certificate of Service This certifies that this document was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on December 14, 2021. /s/ David/M. O’DW David M. O’Dens P:\crd\20\2o-o23o\P1eadings\Motion in Limine.doc DEFENDANT’S AND INTERVENORS’ 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. Debra Camacho on behalf of David O'Dens Bar No. 15198100 dcamacho@settlepou.com Envelope ID: 60024934 Status as of 12/15/2021 10:12 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status David M.O'Dens odens@settlepou.com 12/14/2021 4:41 :16 PM SENT April Sandefur asandefur@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Jordan Whiddon jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Daniel Polese 24102364 dpolese@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Pam Oakley poakley@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Associated Case Party: EDUARDO DEL BOSQUE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Christopher W.Patton cpatton@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT Gregory Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 12/14/2021 4:41:16 PM SENT