___________________________________

Plaintiff John Doe’s Emergency Response to

Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00297-O 

PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO

NON-PARTY JANE ROE’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

TO THE HONORABLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE REED O’CONNOR:

Plaintiff John Doe has labeled his response to Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider 

an “emergency” response for two reasons: Jane Roe’s deposition has been noticed to commence 

tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. and Roe’s counsel have informed us that Roe will not appear for tomorrow’s 

deposition without another order from the Court commanding her to do so. Plaintiff wants to go 

forward with the deposition as soon as possible because of his impending October 18 deadline to 

respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff feels tremendous 

pressure to provide the Court a quick and truncated response to Roe’s Motion to Reconsider in an 

effort to obtain Roe’s deposition tomorrow.

I. Summary of Argument

The Court should deny Roe’s motion out of hand. First, the motion is improper as it is a 

rehash of Roe’s original Motion to Quash (ECF 66) while using evidence that was available to Roe 

on the day she filed that motion, August 3, 2022. Second, Roe’s latest motion suffers from a greater 

evidentiary deficiency than was true of her first motion. The undue-burden opinions adduced by 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 106 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 7030
___________________________________

Plaintiff John Doe’s Emergency Response to

Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider – Page 2

Roe’s most recent expert are inadmissible speculations under Federal Rule of Evidence 702

because they are all qualified by the words “could” or “may.”

II. Argument & Authorities

A. Roe’s motion is improper.

A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for raising issues or citing authorities that a party 

should have or could have presented prior to the Court's ruling, and a motion to reconsider should 

not be employed to rehash arguments already made nor as a means of refuting the Court's ruling.

Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 112 F.R.D. 367, 371 (N.D. Tex. 1986); Reyelts v. Cross, No. 4:12-CV-112-BJ, 2013 

WL 4874111, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 26, 2013) (same). Motions to reconsider serve the narrow 

purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered 

evidence. United States v. Cramer, No. 1:16-CR-26, 2018 WL 7821079, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 

2018); see United States v. Banks, No. 1:08-CR-113, 2009 WL 585506, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 

2009) (“It is well settled that motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments 

that could, and should, have been made earlier or to re-urge matters that have already been 

advanced by a party.”); United States v. Olis, No. H-07-3295, 2008 WL 5046342, at *31 (S.D. Tex. 

Nov. 21, 2008) (“The high burden imposed on parties seeking reconsideration has been 

established to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have already 

been considered by the court, to ensure finality, and to prevent the practice of a losing party 

examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of the lost motion with additional matters.”).

Roe’s motion comes nowhere close to meeting the high standards imposed on a party who 

legitimately seeks reconsideration of a court’s decision. Roe’s motion is nothing but a rehash of 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 106 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 7031
___________________________________

Plaintiff John Doe’s Emergency Response to

Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider – Page 3

her original Motion to Quash while attempting to use evidence that was available to her at the time 

she filed it. 

Roe claims she is presenting “New Evidence of Undue Burden.” Motion, 2. This is 

disingenuous. It is true that Roe has trotted out a different social worker from the social worker 

(Kim Garrett) she used to support her unsuccessful original motion. Motion to Quash, 10. But the 

testimony from Roe’s latest social worker (Redacted-Name) confirms she first saw Roe on August 

1, 2022—two days prior to the filing of Roe’s original motion. See Ex. A., 2 (¶ 4). There are no new 

facts, and the proffered testimony of Roe’s latest social worker was available to Roe on the day she 

filed her original motion. Plus, Roe could have supplemented her original motion with this 

proffered evidence at any point between the day she filed her original motion (August 3, 2022) and 

the day the Court issued its Order on Roe’s original motion (September 21, 2022).

B. Roe’s motion is unsupported by admissible evidence.

In a paragraph heading, Roe claims “her treating, licensed clinical social worker and 

therapist establishes a deposition would cause her undue burden.” Motion, 4 (emphasis added). 

Roe also states that her “treating clinical therapist has provided a more detailed declaration 

showing the extreme hardship a deposition would still cause Roe.” Id. (emphasis added). These 

statements are not accurate.

Redacted-Name’s actual proffered opinions are all qualified by the words “could” and 

“may.” Ex. A., 2–3 (¶ 6). Redacted-Name does not offer a single opinion that crosses the threshold 

for admissibility as all her opinions state nothing more than mere possibilities, speculations, and 

guesswork. See, e.g., Rooney v. Nuta, 267 F.2d 142, 147 (5th Cir. 1959) (“It is necessary that the 

proof go further and establish the conclusion as a reasonable probability.”). The sum total of 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 106 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 7032
___________________________________

Plaintiff John Doe’s Emergency Response to 

Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider – Page 4 

Redacted-Name’s opinions is this—Roe’s deposition might or might not be unduly burdensome 

for her. Doe objects to Redacted-Name’s opinions because they are inadmissible under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 702.

III. Request for Relief

Plaintiff requests the Court to deny Jane Roe’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

 Respectfully submitted:

 By: H. Dustin Fillmore III

 H. Dustin Fillmore III 

 State Bar No. 06996010

The Fillmore Law Firm, L.L.P.

201 Main Street, Suite 700

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

817-332-2351 – Office

 817-870-1859 – Fax

 dusty@fillmorefirm.com

 Bryan D. Bruner

State Bar No. 03252475

Lynne B. Frank

State Bar No. 24087215

Bruner & Bruner, P.C.

 3700 W. 7th Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107

817-332-6633 – Office

 817-332-6619 – Fax

 bbruner@brunerpc.com

Lfrank@brunerpc.com

 Brian Roark

State Bar No. 00794536

Botsford & Roark 

1307 West Avenue

 Austin, Texas 78701

 512-476-1900 – Office

 512-479-8040

 Admitted pro hac vice

 Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 106 Filed 10/06/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 7033
___________________________________

Plaintiff John Doe’s Emergency Response to 

Non-Party Jane Roe’s Motion to Reconsider – Page 5 

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that on October 6, 2022, a true and correct copy of this document 

was served on counsel for TCU and counsel for Jane Roe via the Court’s electronic filing system, 

CM/ECF.

 H. Dustin Fillmore III

 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 106 Filed 10/06/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 7034