1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CHERYL HURD, M.D., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL 

DISTRICT d/b/a JPS HEALTH 

NETWORK AND JOHN PETER 

SMITH HOSPITAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-00388 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE 

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

COMES NOW CHERYL HURD, Plaintiff in the above cause and files this, her Response 

to Defendants’ Motion in Limine (the “Response”) and would show the Court as follows: 

1. Pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24), Plaintiff is 

directed to file a Response concerning any opposed portions of Defendants’ Motion in Limine

(ECF No. 54) (the “Motion”). 

2. The Court will note Plaintiff’s agreement to the Motion’s topics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

3. Defendants’ Motion topic 7 speaks to issues of various policies of Defendants that 

appear on Plaintiff’s Exhibit List. The Motion contends these matters are not relevant or are 

confusing, and should therefore not be referred to at trial without first approaching the Court, as 

should any reference to them. 

4. First, such issues are matters of objections to Plaintiff’s potential exhibits – not 

proper limine points. The Court has no background or reference from foundational testimony to 

know whether the exhibits are or are not relevant to the trial. Without a predicate, this Court has 

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 64 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1205
2 

no context and Defendants effectively state that Plaintiff should not be allowed to even lay such a 

predicate. That is improper and not a limitation, but an effective exclusion of evidence. 

5. Second, the exhibits are a myriad of employment policies. These would be quite 

relevant to show, for example, that Defendants maintain a policy on personal digital devices 

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27), yet apparently have no policy on matters of employee disciplinary review 

or appellate rights. The same is true for a host of JPS policies (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22, 29, and 30) 

that set forth clear and specific frameworks to deal with employee issues, yet no employee review 

or appellate policy apparently exists for workplace matters. Barring Plaintiff from any “reference” 

to such issues about the Defendants’ policies and procedures to deal with employee misconduct 

would be nonsensical, given this is a case involving due process violation claims and where 

Defendants themselves allege Plaintiff committed workplace misconduct. 

6. The policies also reflect a framework or justification of employee expectations. In 

this case, Defendants continue to trumpet that they had a right to terminate Plaintiff for cause – 

despite having never done so, nor ever stating what policy violation created such a right. If 

Defendants were capable of articulating specificity for drugs and alcohol (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25), 

for example, how exactly were they not able to do so for abusive or insensitive language which 

they apparently assert that Plaintiff committed? Nebulous references abound from Defendants 

about Plaintiff’s unprofessionalism with no real reference to policy, while Defendants were 

simultaneously able and did promulgate policies with remarkable specificity. These are relevant 

to rebut the Defendants’ defense and to also show expectations from the Defendants were murky, 

at best, on certain matters and starkly clear on others. 

CONCLUSION 

In sum, the Court should hear the testimony and the predicates of the witnesses at trial. 

When or if Plaintiff offers that testimony or the exhibits, the Court can rule as it would on any 

Case 4:22-cv-00388-O Document 64 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1206
3 

other evidence. Requiring Plaintiff to jump back and forth from the bench with the Court like a 

jack-in-the-box is neither necessary or appropriate, which is what Defendants would require. 

Without some dire or prejudicial matter, which Defendants do not allege, the Court should deny 

topic 7 in the Motion. 

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 64 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1207