1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

Defendants Tarrant County Hospital District d/b/a JPS Health Network and John Peter 

Smith Hospital (“JPS”) and Acclaim Physician Group (“Acclaim”) (collectively, “Defendants”) 

file this motion in limine and would show as follows:

I.

“An order granting a motion in limine is an order requiring the offering party to approach 

the bench and seek leave from the Court prior to mentioning the matter covered by the order to the 

jury . . . .” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., No. 2:14-CV-287-RWS-JBB, 2022 WL 7219272, at *6 

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2022). “The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in 

advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” Carter v. 

Transp. Workers Union of Am., Loc. 556, No. 3:17-CV-2278-X, 2022 WL 2762907, at *1 (N.D. 

Tex. July 1, 2022).

II.

Defendants ask the Court to prohibit Plaintiff from offering argument or evidence on any 

of the following matters without first obtaining a ruling on the admissibility of the matter outside 

of the presence of the jury:

CHERYL HURD, M.D., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL

DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00388-O

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 54 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 912
2

1. Dr. Ed Miles. Plaintiff has disclosed that she may call Dr. Ed Miles as a fact 

witness on the basis that Defendants allegedly placed him on a remediation plan and thereafter 

permitted him to retain his employment and leadership position. Dr. Miles’s employment and 

disciplinary history, if any, with Defendants is irrelevant to the facts of this case. This is not a 

disparate treatment case. Any probative value on the question of due process is substantially 

outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing of the issues, misleading the jury, or undue 

delay. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: ____X_____ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

2. Dr. Diane Mummert. Plaintiff has disclosed that she may call Dr. Diane 

Mummert as a fact witness on the basis that Defendants allegedly placed her on a remediation plan 

in the recent past. Dr. Mummert’s employment and disciplinary history, if any, with Defendants 

is irrelevant to the facts of this case. This is not a disparate treatment case. Any probative value 

on the question of due process is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing 

of the issues, misleading the jury, or undue delay. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: ____ X _____ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

3. Insurance Coverage. Any question, statement, or reference that Defendants have 

or may be covered by some form of liability insurance, self-insured retention trust, or other form 

of liability excess liability insurance coverage with respect to the incident in question for the reason 

that such fact is entirely immaterial to any issue in this cause. Any mention or inference thereof, 

either directly or indirectly, would be harmful and prejudicial to Defendants and not probative of 

any issue to be considered by the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: ____ X ____ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 54 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 913
3

4. Review of this Case by Regulatory Agency. Any question, statement, or 

reference by Plaintiff’s counsel or any witness called by Plaintiff that the facts of this case may be, 

will be, or should be reviewed by the Texas Medical Board, The Texas Department of State Health 

Services, the Office of Inspector General, or any other local, state, or federal regulatory agency. 

Any mention or inference thereof, either directly or indirectly, would be harmful and prejudicial 

to Defendants and not probative of any issue to be considered by the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-

403.

AGREED: ____ X ____ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

5. Media References to Defendants. Any question, statement, or reference to any 

media source including, but not limited to, newspapers, video news broadcasts, and/or on line news 

sources that discuss or reference Defendants. Any mention or inference thereof, either directly or 

indirectly, would be harmful and prejudicial to Defendants and not probative of any issue to be 

considered by the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: _____ X ____ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

6. References to Defendants’ Governmental Status to Suggest Ability to Pay 

Damages. Any question, statement, or reference to the effect that Defendants are “tax payer 

supported” or able to comfortably pay any damages award. Any mention or inference thereof, 

either directly or indirectly, would be harmful and prejudicial to Defendants and not probative of 

any issue to be considered by the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: ___ X ______ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 54 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 914
4

7. Written Policies and Procedures of Defendants Irrelevant to this Proceeding.

Any question, statement, or reference to the written policies and procedures of Defendants 

regarding use of drugs and alcohol (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 25) or use of personal digital devices 

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 27) or those that apply solely to JPS employees (Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 

22, 29, and 30) for the reason that such policies and procedures have no relevance to any issue in 

the case and such reference would be confusing to the jury and prejudicial to Defendants. See Fed. 

R. Evid. 401-403.

AGREED: __________ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jordan M. Parker

Jordan M. Parker

State Bar No. 15491400

jparker@canteyhanger.com

Derek Carson

State Bar No. 24085240

dcarson@canteyhanger.com

Alexandra M. Williams

State Bar No. 24107297

awilliams@canteyhanger.com

CANTEY HANGER LLP

Cantey Hanger Plaza

600 W. 6th St., Suite 300

Fort Worth, TX 76102

(817) 877-2800 (phone)

(817) 877-2807 (fax)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 54 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 915
5

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the relief sought in this motion. Plaintiff’s 

position as to each ground in the motion is set out above. 

 /s/ Derek Carson

Derek Carson 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of this document was served on all counsel of record via this Court’s ECF system 

on November 16, 2022.

 /s/ Jordan M. Parker

Jordan M. Parker

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 54 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 916