IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Ann Marie Attridge §

§

§

§

§

§ 

§

§

§

§ 

§

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.:

v SA:20-cv-00205-OLG

Colonial Savings F.A., 

TransUnion, LLC

Defendants.

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion in Limine 

____________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff, Ann Marie Attridge, prior to the voir dire examination of 

the jury panel and out of presence and hearing of the panel, files Plaintiff’s 

Motion in Limine. 

Plaintiff seeks to exclude matters that are irrelevant, prejudicial, or 

improper to the material issues in this cause. 

Should Defendant introduce these matters into the trial of this cause 

through a party, a witness, or an attorney, such introduction will cause 

irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s case, which will not be cured by any jury 

instruction. 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 15
Plaintiff requests the Court to instruct counsel for Defendants that 

violation of any of these instructions may cause harm to Plaintiff and 

deprive Plaintiff of a fair and impartial trial, and the failure to abide by 

such instructions may constitute contempt of court. 

Should any of these matters be brought to the attention of the jury, 

either directly or indirectly, Plaintiff will be compelled to move for a 

mistrial. In an effort to avoid prejudice and a possible mistrial, Plaintiff 

urges that this Honorable Court consider, and grant Plaintiff’s requests as 

stated herein.

Plaintiff requests that counsel for the Defendant Colonial, F.A., and 

through said counsel, all witnesses for the Defendant, be instructed by 

appropriate Order of this Honorable Court to refrain from making any 

interrogation, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, concerning 

any of the matters hereinafter set forth, without first approaching the 

Bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside of the presence and 

hearing of all prospective Jurors ultimately selected in this cause in regard 

to any alleged theory of admissibility of such matters, to-wit:

1. That no mention be made that this Motion has been filed or that any 

ruling has been made by the Court in response to this Motion, 

suggesting or inferring to the Jury that the Plaintiff has moved to 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 15
prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of any particular 

matter. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

2. Any testimony by the Defendant’s experts concerning their 

discussions with another expert. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802; United 

States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Crawford v. 

Washinton, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) (forbidding introduction of 

testimonial hearsay as evidence in itself)). 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

 

3. Any evidence Defendants did not produce in discovery. Defendants 

should not be permitted to present any witness not disclosed in

response to mandatory disclosures, discovery responses, or evidence 

requested by Plaintiff but not produced by Defendants. Viasphere 

Int’l v. Vardanyan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206583 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Project Sentinel v. Komar, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119048 (9th Cir. 

2020). 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 15
Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

4. That other counsel be instructed by the Court to approach the bench 

before attempting to introduce evidence in any form which has been 

excluded by this motion. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

5. Any attempt to elicit testimony from Plaintiff about communications 

with her lawyer. Such communications are privileged. Fed. R. Evid. 

502.

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

6. Any attempt to elicit testimony from Plaintiff concerning settlement 

negotiations or agreements with any other party.

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 15
7. That there be no reference to the fact that at any time during 

discovery or otherwise, Plaintiff has invoked the attorney-client 

privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, the party 

communications privilege, or any other privileges in connection with 

this case. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

8. That no mention be made that any verdict returned by the Jury would 

be subject to prejudgment or post-judgment interest. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

9. Any attempt within the Jury’s presence or hearing to seek or request 

Plaintiff’s attorney to produce documents, to stipulate to any fact, or 

make any agreement. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

10. Any testimony or argument suggesting or implying to the Jury that 

any party has made attempts or requests outside of the Jury’s 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 15
presence for the Plaintiff’s attorney to produce documents, stipulate 

to any fact, or to make any agreement. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

11. Any matters stated in Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s pleadings that have 

been superseded by amendment, in that prior pleadings have no force 

or effect, and matters stated therein are irrelevant to these 

proceedings. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

12. Any testimony from witnesses that were not disclosed in any party’s 

26(a) disclosures, discovery responses, or questioned in deposition.

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

13. Any mention of the probable testimony of a witness who is absent, 

unavailable, not called to testify, or not allowed, in any manner to 

testify in this case. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 15
Other: _____________________________________________

14. Any mention, suggestion or questioning of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s

witnesses that relate to, accuse or impute any collateral source of 

payment to Plaintiff. Collateral source evidence is not admissible, 

and any such mention, suggestion or questioning would be incurably 

prejudicial even though objections were timely made and sustained. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

15. Any testimony or argument suggesting or implying to the Jury that 

any party has made attempts or requests outside of the Jury’s 

presence for the Plaintiff’s attorney to produce documents, stipulate 

to any fact, or to make any agreement. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

16. Any testimony or evidence regarding injuries Plaintiff suffered before 

the injuries that are subject of this lawsuit. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 7 of 15
17. Any attempt to introduce into evidence, or elicit testimony on, any 

document or tangible thing until counsel for the Plaintiff has the 

opportunity to view the document or tangible thing outside the 

presence of the Jury. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

18. Any reference to discovery activities in this case, specifically 

including, without limitation, the filing of motions to compel 

discovery, the assertion of objections to discovery, disputes about the 

timeliness of discovery responses the cost of discovery. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

19. That the Defendants and their witnesses shall refrain from any 

mention or statement as to the ability of the other parties to pay any 

Judgment rendered in this cause of action or the effect that any such 

Judgment will have on the other parties, their employees or the 

public if any. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 8 of 15
Other: _____________________________________________

20. Any statement to the Jury which tends to inform the Jury as to the 

effect of any answer which the Jury may make to a Jury question. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

21. Before the Court rules on the law applicable to this case, any 

statement of the law other than regarding the burden of proof and the 

basic legal definitions counsel believe to be applicable. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

22. Any testimony or argument concerning Plaintiff’s attorney’s fee 

agreement in this case. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

23. Offering evidence or questioning any civil litigation of any Plaintiff, 

attorney or healthcare provider has been in, without showing of 

relevance. 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 9 of 15
Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

24. Testimony, objections, or argument inconsistent with the 

Defendant’s pleadings filed with the Court prior to the filing of this 

Motion; or referring to or regarding any alleged claims, affirmative 

defenses, or other issues or subject matter not expressly contained 

within the Defendant’s pleadings filed with the Court prior to the 

filing of this Motion. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

25. Objection to expert testimony by Dr. Kathleen Hands under Rule 

403, and under Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 

518 (5th Cir. 1999). In accordance with this Court's order, Plaintiff 

herein includes additional objections to the Defense's experts in her 

pretrial motions. Dr. Hands wanders from her expertise and provides

extraneous testimony without providing adequate basis for its 

admissibility. These meanderings are unduly prejudicial to Plaintiff 

and will taint the opinions of jurors and are not admissible. Under 

Stearns an expert’s opinion grounded in an erroneous assumption of 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 10 of 15
law may be disregarded by this Court. Id. Here, Dr. Hands claims it is 

within her opinion that the filing of this lawsuit is erroneous, that by 

Plaintiff filing this lawsuit she is choosing to blame others for how 

she is feeling. Dr. Hand’s bias is impossible to ignore. She believes 

Plaintiff blames others for her misgivings and that this lawsuit is 

unfounded. This erroneous legal conclusion will produce undue 

prejudice for Plaintiff, as jurors are likely to put more weight on her 

testimony given her title and position in society as a physician. 

Further, Plaintiff objects to other statements by Dr. Hands pertaining 

to Ian Wilson's medical history under 801, and 402. These statements 

are irrelevant hearsay, as Mr. Wilsons’ diagnosis has no relevance to 

this case. Dr. Hands learned of it only through inadmissible hearsay.

Plaintiff asks this court to strictly limit, if not prohibit the testimony 

by Dr. Hands. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

26. Objection to Dean Binder's Testimony, under Rule 403, 704, 602 and 

under Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 

1999). In accordance with this Court's order, Plaintiff herein 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 11 of 15
includes additional objections to the Defense's experts in her pretrial 

motions. Dean Binder's testimony is based entirely on an erroneous 

assumption of the law in the form of an improper legal opinion, 

allowing this testimony to be heard by a jury would be unduly 

prejudicial to Plaintiff. Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 240 

(5th Cir. 1983) (experts are not allowed to give legal conclusions). 

Olson v. City of Burnet, No. A-20-CV-00162-JRN- 2021 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 69851, at *7 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (citing Owen) (an expert's 

legal opinions are inadmissible). Binder states that failing to use the 

"Q" code does not constitute an FCRA violation. This inadmissible 

legal conclusion is an erroneous assumption of the law which Mr. 

Binder has based the entirety of his opinion that Colonial was not at 

fault in the incorrect bankruptcy reporting. Following the opinion in 

Stearns, this Court has the right to disregard Mr. Binder's testimony 

and should do so in the furtherance of fairness and justice, as 

allowing such flawed, mistaken testimony will bring unfair prejudice 

unto Plaintiff and her case. Additionally, Binders testimony should be 

inadmissible under Rule 602. Binder speculates as to the conduct of 

the credit bureaus who were not part of this erroneous reporting. 

Binder did not review any documents pertaining to these third 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 12 of 15
parties. He does not have personal knowledge as to these assertions 

and therefore should not be allowed to testify to them. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

27. In accordance with this court’s order, Plaintiff states her position that her 

objections to Defendant’s expert were timely. The scheduling order in this cause 

states that objections to experts under Rule 702 were to be made within 14 days of 

the receipt of such report. Plaintiff did not bring any formal objections to 

Defendants experts under Rule 702. (Dkt. No. 12 ¶ 5). She however brings several 

objections in these motions in limine under different evidentiary rules. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26 provides that: 

“(B) Time for Pretrial Disclosures; Objections. Unless the court orders 

otherwise, these disclosures must be made at least 30 days before trial. 

Within 14 days after they are made, unless the court sets a different time, a 

party may serve and promptly file a list of the following objections: any 

objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another 

party under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii); and any objection, together with the 

grounds for it, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified 

under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). An objection not so made—except for one under 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 13 of 15
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 or 403—is waived unless excused by the court for 

good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (emphasis added).

Both objections to Defendant’s experts are grounded in Rule 403, as is allowed by 

the Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s objections outside of Rule 702 will not 

cause undue delay or waste the court’s time, instead they would help insure the 

furtherance of justice.

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

28. Any mention of other litigants who are no longer part of this cause and settlement 

agreements between parties that are or used to be litigants in this cause. Fed. R. 

Evid. 408. 

Granted: _______________ Denied: _______________

Other: _____________________________________________

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests the 

Court to instruct Defendants and all counsel not to mention, refer to, 

interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either 

directly or indirectly, any of these matters without first obtaining the 

Court’s permission outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 14 of 15
further instruct Defendants and all counsel to warn and caution each of 

their witnesses to follow the same instructions.

Dated: July 13, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/William M. Clanton

William M. Clanton

Texas Bar No. 24049436

Law Office of Bill Clanton, P.C.

926 Chulie Dr.

San Antonio, Texas 78216

210-226-0800

210-338-8660 fax

Bill@clantonlawoffice.com

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 71 Filed 07/13/22 Page 15 of 15