PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CHERYL HURD, M.D., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

(1) TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL 

DISTRICT d/b/a JPS HEALTH 

NETWORK AND JOHN PETER SMITH 

HOSPITAL; and 

(2) ACCLAIM PHYSICIAN GROUP, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-00388 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REED O’CONNOR: 

COMES NOW Plaintiff Cheryl Hurd (“Plaintiff”) before the voir dire examination of the 

jury panel, and files this Motion in Limine in the above-referenced cause of action: 

INTRODUCTION 

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

material issues in this case. If Defendant Tarrant County Hospital District d/b/a JPS Health 

Network and John Peter Smith Hospital, and Defendant Acclaim Physician Group, Inc. 

(“Defendants” or “JPS”) inject these matters in this case through a party, an attorney, or a witness, 

they will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff's case for which no jury instruction would cure. If any 

of these matters are directly or indirectly brought to the attention of the jury, Plaintiff will be 

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

makes this motion in limine and respectfully shows as follows: 

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 53 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 908
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 2 of 4 

GROUNDS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to prohibit Defendants from offering any of the following matters 

without first asking for a ruling from the Court, outside the jury’s presence, on the admissibility 

of the matter. 

1. Any references to any allegations, holdings, or evidence presented in any other matter, 

lawsuit, or criminal proceeding – specifically Plaintiff’s defenses of a malpractice suit 

and a complaint with the Texas Medical Board. These matters were unrelated to any 

employment decisions with Plaintiff giving rise to this suit. Such references are 

irrelevant to the limited issues in this matter, and the probative value of such evidence 

would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See FED. R. EVID. 401, 402 & 403. 

AGREED: ___x_______ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

2. Any evidence, statement, or argument about grounds allegedly discovered by 

Defendants concerning Plaintiff post-March 18, 2022. Such matters played no role or 

part in the denial of due process and are therefore irrelevant, confusing, and prejudicial. 

See FED. R. EVID. 401, 402 & 403. 

AGREED: __________ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

3. Discussion or reference to Plaintiff’s attempts, passage or failure relating to licensure 

board examinations. These matters were unrelated to any employment decisions with 

Plaintiff giving rise to this suit. Such references are irrelevant to the limited issues in 

this matter, and the probative value of such evidence would be outweighed by its 

prejudicial effect. See FED. R. EVID. 401, 402 & 403. 

AGREED: ___x_______ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 53 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 909
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 3 of 4 

4. Plaintiff’s seeking, obtaining or losing any alternative peer-elected position(s), 

including the refusal to allow Plaintiff to submit such an application. These matters 

were unrelated to any employment decisions with Plaintiff giving rise to this suit. Such 

references are irrelevant to the limited issues in this matter, and the probative value of 

such evidence would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See FED. R. EVID. 401, 

402 & 403. 

AGREED: __________ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

5. Any evidence, statement, or argument concerning a claim, lawsuit, verdict, or judgment 

having an adverse effect on Defendants, including any reference to the effects on 

taxpayers or public funding. 

AGREED: ___x_______ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

 

6. Any reference to draft reports or communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and 

Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, as prohibited in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) and (C). Such 

matters are protected from discovery and likewise inadmissible. 

AGREED: ___x_______ GRANTED: __________ DENIED: __________

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to instruct the Defendants and all their attorneys 

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 permission of the Court, 

outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and to instruct Defendants and all their attorneys to 

warn and caution each of their witnesses to follow the same instructions. 

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 53 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 910
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE Page 4 of 4 

Respectfully submitted, 

AYRES LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

By: /s/ Christopher S. Ayres 

CHRISTOPHER S. AYRES 

State Bar No. 24036167 

csayres@ayreslawoffice.com 

R. JACK AYRES, JR. 

State Bar No. 01473000 

rjayres@ayreslawoffice.com 

One Glen Lakes Tower 

8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 830 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

(972) 991-2222 – Phone 

(972) 386-0091 – Fax 

 ZANER LAW, P.C. 

 KARIN M. ZANER 

 State Bar No. 00791183 

 karin@zaner.law 

 

 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 

 Dallas, Texas 75225 

 (214) 363-5036 – Phone 

 (214) 363-5046 – Fax 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was 

forwarded to all registered counsel via the Court’s electronic service system on the date and time of its 

submission. 

 /s/ Christopher S. Ayres 

Christopher S. Ayres 

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 53 Filed 11/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 911