IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JERRAL W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDRA DAVIS and CYNTHIA 

DAVIS f/k/a CYNTHIA DAVIS-SPENCER,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 5:23-cv-00032-RWS

AMENDED JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

The Pretrial Conference was held on July 2, 2024. Docket No. XXX. Pursuant to the 

Court’s Trial Procedure’s Order (Dkt. 199), Plaintiff Jerral W. Jones (“Plaintiff” or “Jones”), 

Defendant Alexandra Davis (“Alexandra Davis”), and Defendant Cynthia Davis f/k/a Cynthia 

Davis-Spencer (“Cynthia Davis”) (collectively, the “Parties”) filed this Proposed Amended Joint 

Pre-Trial Order. The Court hereby ADOPTS the Amended Joint Pretrial Order. 

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jerral W. Jones:

Charles L. Babcock

State Bar No. 01479500

cbabcock@jw.com

Nancy W. Hamilton

State Bar No. 11587925

nhamilton@jw.com

1401 McKinney Street

Suite 1900

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 752-4210

David T. Moran 

State Bar No. 14419400 

dmoran@jw.com

Edwin Buffmire

State Bar No. 24078283

ebuffmire@jw.com

Cody Martinez

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 4539
Page 2 of 16

State Bar No. 24102146

cmartinez@jw.com

2323 Ross Avenue

Suite 600

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 953-6000

David Folsom

State Bar No. 07210800

david@folsomadr.com

6002-B Summerfield Dr.

Texarkana, TX 75503

(903) 277-7303

Attorneys for Defendant Alexandra Davis:

Jay Kurtis Gray

State Bar No. 08324050

gray@bergmangray.com

Andrew Alan Bergman

State Bar No. 02196300

bergman@abergmanlaw.com

Law Office of Andrew A Bergman, PC

4514 Travis Street, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75205

214-528-2444

Matt Keil

State Bar No. 11181750

mkeil@kglawfirm.com

Erin Mattson Keil

State Bar No. 24120462

ekeil@kglawfirm.com

Hailee M. Amox

State Bar No. 24085176

hamox@kglawfirm.com

Keil Law Firm, PLLC

406 Walnut Street

Texarkana, AR 71854

870-772-4113

Attorney for Defendant Cynthia Davis-Spencer:

Krista “Kris” Hayes

State Bar No. 24031719

kris@bh-pllc.com

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 4540
Page 3 of 16

Balekian Hayes, PLLC

4144 N Central Expressway, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75204

214-828-2800

Emory Osborn

State Bar No. 24134537

kris@bh-pllc.com

Balekian Hayes, PLLC

4144 N Central Expressway, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75204

214-828-2800

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Jones’s position.

Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under Title 28 USC § 1332(a)—

Alexandra Davis, a citizen of Washington, D.C., brought defamation claims against nowdismissed Defendants Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., James Wilkinson, TrailRunner 

International, LLC, who are and were all Texas citizens, and Donald Jack, Jr. who is an Arkansas 

citizen. There is thus complete diversity of citizenship among the original parties, and the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs. The Court also has 

supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’s counterclaims against Davis and third-party claims against 

Cynthia Davis-Spencer because they are derived from the same nucleus of operative facts as 

Davis’s now-dismissed defamation claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Jurisdiction is not disputed nor are the factual bases for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Davis’s and Spencer’s position.

Davis’s original defamation claim was based upon diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. 

Jones later brought a counterclaim against Davis and a third-party claim against Davis-Spencer, 

destroying complete diversity. He alleged supplemental jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 4541
Page 4 of 16

defamation claim, and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction no longer exists. Jones proceeds under 

claimed supplemental jurisdiction.

C. NATURE OF ACTION

Jones alleges breach of contract claims arising from the material breaches of a Settlement, 

Release and Covenant Not to Sue (the “Agreement”) executed between Jones, Alexandra Davis,

and then-Cynthia Spencer (now known as Cynthia Davis). Pursuant to the Agreement: (1) 

Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis released—and promised not to file any lawsuit asserting—

claims against Jones related to his alleged paternity; (2) Cynthia Davis agreed to use her best efforts 

to prevent Alexandra Davis from suing Jones, including to establish paternity; and (3) Alexandra 

Davis and Cynthia Davis promised to maintain confidentiality regarding the terms of the 

Agreement and allegations regarding Jones’s alleged paternity of Alexandra Davis. In exchange, 

Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis received as consideration totaling millions of dollars from 

Jones beginning in Alexandra’s Davis’s early childhood through her adulthood.

Despite their release of claims and the above promises, Alexandra Davis (with Cynthia 

Davis’s assistance) publicly filed two lawsuits against Jones wherein she disclosed the Agreement

and alleged that Jones is her father. They publicized these lawsuits to the national media. Jones 

now seeks to recover the damages, including the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and paid (and 

likely will incur) in defending these lawsuits that Alexandra Davis promised to never bring and 

Cynthia Davis promised to use her best efforts to prevent. Jones also seeks a declaratory judgment 

regarding the terms of the Agreement and its enforceability against Alexandra Davis and Cynthia 

Davis, and upon entry of judgment in his favor seeks to recover his attorneys’ fees incurred in this 

lawsuit, as provided by the Agreement and Texas law. 

D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Jones’s statement of his contentions.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4542
Page 5 of 16

By providing these contentions, Jones does not concede that all of these issues are 

appropriate for trial. In addition, Jones does not waive any of his motions in limine.

1. The Agreement is a binding and enforceable contract on Jones, Cynthia Davis, and 

Alexandra Davis.

2. The Agreement released and prohibited any claim being asserted by Alexandra 

Davis to establish paternity or, in the case of Cynthia Davis, obligated her to use 

her best efforts to prevent Alexandra Davis (or anyone acting on Alexandra Davis’s 

behalf) from making any claim against Jones related to alleged paternity. 

3. Prior to Defendants’ material and separate breaches of the Agreement, Jones fully 

performed his obligations under the Agreement. 

4. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis materially breached the Agreement by suing 

Jones related to alleged paternity and then suing a second time to establish 

paternity.

5. Alexandra Davis’s and Cynthia Davis’s material breach of the Agreement caused 

Jones to suffer actual damages in the form of incurring and paying reasonable and 

necessary attorneys’ fees in defending the two state court lawsuits. 

6. Jones is entitled to a judgment against Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis for the 

actual damages, pre and post-judgment interest, and his reasonable and necessary 

attorneys’ fees incurred and paid in bringing these claims for breach of contract, 

and all other relief, including declaratory relief, to which he is entitled at law and 

equity. 

7. The Agreement also prohibited Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis from 

disclosing its terms to Third Parties. 

8. Cynthia Davis provided the Agreement to a third-party in breach of its terms and 

also issued a sworn declaration in the paternity lawsuit publicly disclosing 

allegations of alleged paternity against Jones in material breach of the Agreement’s 

terms.

9. Davis disclosed the Agreement and its terms in publicly filing a lawsuit against 

Jones seeking, in part, to enforce some of its terms, in breach of the Agreement. 

10. Alexandra Davis did not disaffirm the Agreement within a reasonable time, and not 

within one year, after reaching adulthood, 18 years of age. Or in the alternative, she 

did not disaffirm the Agreement within one year of her knowing the material terms 

of the Agreement.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 4543
Page 6 of 16

11. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis otherwise ratified the Agreement and ratified 

Jones full performance under it by treating the Agreement as continuing in full force 

and effect, accepting benefits under the Agreement, and seeking enforcement of 

certain benefits under the Agreement. 

12. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis cannot allege a prior breach by Jones nor any 

contention that Jones did not fully perform under the Agreement prior to their 

material breaches of the Agreement in filing the first and second lawsuits, or 

disclosing the terms of the Agreement, each in material breach of the Agreement, 

by treating the Agreement as continuing in full force and effect, accepting benefits 

under the Agreement, and seeking enforcement of certain benefits under the 

Agreement.

13. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis are estopped from asserting any alleged 

material breach by Jones or failure to fully perform under the Agreement prior to 

their filing of the first and second lawsuits, or their disclosures of the terms of the 

Agreement, because they treated the Agreement as continuing in full force and 

effect, accepting benefits under the Agreement, and seeking enforcement of certain 

benefits under the Agreement.

14. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis failed to preserve and permanently destroyed 

evidence after their duty to preserve that evidence arose in this case, and they 

intentionally destroyed, failed to preserve, acted in bad faith, or otherwise 

wrongfully withheld such evidence which would have been harmful to their case. 

Alexandra Davis’s statement of her contentions.

Davis denies Jones’s allegations, as specified more fully below. Davis in no way limits 

herself by providing these contentions nor does she waive any argument previously 

presented to the Court but not contained herein. 

1. Davis was never a party to the Settlement Agreement, nor was she bound by the 

Settlement Agreement. At the time the Settlement Agreement was executed, Davis 

was a minor. No ad litem, independent counsel, or court reviewed the Settlement 

Agreement or represented Davis at the time of the Settlement Agreement’s 

execution.

2. No valid contract exists. The Settlement Agreement violates public policy and is 

void. 

3. Davis never ratified the Settlement Agreement, nor was she under any legal 

obligation to disaffirm the Settlement Agreement. Ratification requires knowledge 

of all material facts, which Davis never had. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 4544
Page 7 of 16

4. Jones cannot establish the basic elements of a breach of contract. No meeting of the 

minds occurred, nor did Jones suffer any actual damages caused by the alleged 

breach. 

5. Jones materially breached the contract first by disclosing confidential information 

to a third-party in 2019. Any subsequent performance allegedly required by Davis 

was excused.

6. Jones also subsequently breached the Settlement Agreement by providing 

Plaintiff’s Declaratory Judgment Action to the national press. Jones’s agents also 

disclosed the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the national press in an 

interview on March 30, 2022. Jones also subsequently filed the Settlement 

Agreement as a public record with the Dallas courts and this court.

7. Jones has not incurred any reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

Cynthia Davis’s statement of her contentions.

1. Jones had an affair with Defendant Cynthia Davis (“Cynthia”). As a result of the affair, 

Cynthia Davis became pregnant with Jones’ child and Alexandra Davis was born. When 

Alexandra Davis was almost two years old, Cynthia Davis was under duress and economic 

duress when she executed a Settlement Release and Covenant Not To Sue or faced financial 

ruin and a scary fight in Court. Spencer contends Jones never executed the document. 

2. The agreement states: The parties agree and covenant not to disclose the terms of the 

Agreement, or make any future disclosures or statement regarding Mother’s belief that 

Putative Father is father of the child, .... The parties agree further that neither Mother, 

Child nor Putative Father will act in any manner that might jeopardize the confidentiality 

of the Agreement and will protect and safeguard with utmost care the privacy of Child, 

Mother, and Putative Father. If Mother or Child or any person on behalf of Child, brings 

or commences any kind of legal proceeding seeking to establish the paternity of Child, 

breaches the Agreement, or if Mother makes any statement to any person that Putative 

Father fathered Child, .... Putative Father may, in his sole discretion, elect to terminate the 

Agreement and the Funding Trust and the Distribution Trust, or either of them, and enforce 

any and all remedies available to him at law or in equity.

3. Cynthia Davis contends the agreement did not specify specifically what action would need 

to be taken by Cynthia Davis to safeguard the privacy of the relationship between 

Alexandra Davis and Jones. 

4. Cynthia Davis does not have the ability to prevent Alexandra Davis from taking any action 

once she becomes an adult. Reasonable efforts are not defined in the agreement. 

5. Cynthia Davis contends her daughter received money from a trust that was funded by the 

putative father but her primary contact for the trust was Jones’ lawyer. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 4545
Page 8 of 16

6. Cynthia Davis contends that many people knew about Jones being the parent of Alexandra 

Davis before the execution of the agreement, including Shy Anderson. Cynthia Davis 

contends Jones told many people about his relationship to Alexandra Davis in violation of 

the agreement. Cynthia Davis alleges that if a binding agreement was executed, Cynthia 

Davis was excused from performance because Jones waived his rights to any 

confidentiality and released Cynthia Davis because Jones breached the agreement first. 

7. Jones’ breach was a complete breach of the contract and he is not entitled to any alleged 

damages. 

8. Cynthia Davis contends that Jones has no damages and that this lawsuit was filed against 

her as a means to place leverage and hurt Davis. 

9. Cynthia Davis was not a Plaintiff in either of the two lawsuits that make the basis of Jones’ 

alleged damages. Cynthia Davis was a Respondent in the second lawsuit. 

10. Jones has failed to provide evidence of any damages. 

11. Jones does not have evidence of all elements of a breach of contract claim against Cynthia 

Davis. 

12. Any deleted evidence can be restored. 

13. Any spoliation that may have occurred was not intentional or done with malice or bad faith. 

E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

The Parties agree to the following stipulations and uncontested facts:

1. Davis sued Jones in two state court lawsuits one lawsuit was for a declaratory 

judgment related the Settlement Agreement and the second lawsuit was related to 

her allegation of Jones’s paternity in March and April 2022. 

2. Davis was born on December 16, 1996. 

3. Spencer is Davis’s biological mother. 

F. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW1

1 Both parties reiterate some “contested issues of fact and law” that may have already been resolved 

by the Court. See Docket No. 106, 195, 196, 212. The Court understands, however, that the parties 

are merely preserving their record. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 4546
Page 9 of 16

The Parties respectively identify the following issues of fact that remain to be litigated. To 

the extent any issue of law discussed below is deemed to be an issue of fact, it is incorporated into 

this section. The Parties reserve the right to identify additional factual or legal issues that may 

arise, including issues raised by any further discovery undertaken in this case or the Court’s rulings 

on any pending motions or rulings made at the pretrial conference on this action.

By providing this statement, the Parties do not concede that all of these issues are 

appropriate for trial. The Parties also do not waive any of their pending motions.

Jones’s contested issues of fact and law.

1. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis materially breached the Agreement in at least 

two separate, independent ways. First, Davis breached the Agreement by suing 

Jones in Dallas County District Court seeking a declaratory judgment related to 

Jones’s alleged paternity and alleging that she was not bound by certain, but not all, 

of the Agreement’s terms, specifically that she was entitled to sue Jones for 

paternity testing and legally entitled to continue to receive payments under the 

Agreement. Davis then sued Jones seeking paternity testing and an order of 

paternity, in the Dallas County Family District Court, also in breach of the 

Agreement. Spencer breached the Agreement by supporting and encouraging 

Davis’s breach rather than, as she promised in the Agreement using best efforts to 

prevent Davis from her breach. Those two lawsuits and Spencer’s support 

materially breached the prohibitions in the Agreement from bringing causes of 

action related to alleged paternity by Jones, which were forever released and 

Defendants promised to never bring in exchange for millions of dollars in 

consideration paid to them.

2. Any alleged disclosure of the Agreement or Jones’s paternity by Jones is legally

immaterial and irrelevant because (1) any alleged disclosure by Jones prior to 

Alexandra Davis’s and Cynthia Davis’s breach was immaterial and excused in any 

event when both Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis both continued treating the 

Agreement as an enforceable contract and accepting benefits under it; (2) 

Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis have waived and are otherwise estopped from 

contending that Jones materially breached the Agreement or otherwise failed to 

fully perform his obligations under the Agreement; and (3) any alleged disclosure 

after Alexandra Davis’s and Cynthia Davis’s material and independent breaches 

are immaterial, and legally irrelevant and merely responsive to their material

breach.

3. Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis also separately materially breached their 

independent obligation to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential by 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 4547
Page 10 of 16

disclosing to numerous third-parties the terms of the Agreement and the allegation 

of Jones’s paternity which they promised to keep confidential.

4. This Court has established that Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis failed to 

preserve and permanently destroyed evidence after their duty to preserve evidence 

arose in this case. Jones contends that Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis failed to 

preserve, permanently destroyed, acted in bad faith, or are otherwise withholding 

that evidence intentionally. The consequence of Alexandra Davis’s and Cynthia 

Davis’s material and intentional destruction of evidence, including their misleading 

and false testimony about such evidence, requires that judgment be entered against 

them, their defenses be struck, and that reasonable sanctions be imposed at an 

amount sufficient to deter such conduct. 

5. Jones has filed motions in limine raising legal issues that bar, or render immaterial 

and irrelevant, Davis’s and Spencer’s affirmative defenses (which are also listed 

below). Jones further notes that his Responses in Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motions for Summary Judgment (see Dkt. Nos. 125 & 126 [add docket re 

reconsideration/perjury) raise legal arguments that if accepted would preclude 

Defendants from admitting evidence on their affirmative defenses.

6. Jones contends that Defendants’ affirmative defenses, listed below, have been 

resolved by the Court’s holding that the Agreement is an enforceable contract, and 

that they are otherwise legally untenable and unsupportable by evidence:

i. Minority/capacity to contract (Davis)

ii. Prior material breach (Both)

iii. Public policy/hush money (Both)

iv. Fraudulent inducement (Davis)

v. Unclean hands – one year old (Both)

vi. No standing – not a party (Both)

vii. Duress (Spencer)

viii. Estoppel (Spencer)

ix. Waived performance (Spencer)

x. Repudiation (Spencer)

xi. Res judicata (Spencer)

xii. Ambiguity (Spencer)

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 4548
Page 11 of 16

xiii. Statute of frauds (Spencer)

xiv. Denial of conditions precedent (Spencer

Davis’s contested issues of fact and law.

The Settlement Agreement is not an enforceable contract.

1. The Settlement Agreement is not a contract between the parties.

2. Jones materially breached the Settlement Agreement first.

3. The material breach by Jones excused subsequent performance under the 

Settlement Agreement by Davis.

4. Jones has unclean hands as it relates to the settlement agreement.

5. The agreement violates public policy.

6. Jones has no damages and has filed this action as a means of retaliating against 

Davis.

7. Jones is not able to rely on attorney fees from other actions as damages and any 

recovery of those fees is barred by res judicata.

8. Any additional issues of law and fact raised in Defendant’s Opposed Motion 

for Summary Judgment and Opposed Motion to Exclude Expert.

9. Defendant Davis’s affirmative defenses:

Minority/capacity to contract

Prior material breach by Jones

Against Public policy 

Fraudulent inducement 

Jones has Unclean Hands

No standing – not a party

Cynthia Davis’ contested issues of fact and law.

1. The Settlement Agreement was entered into under duress. 

2. Jones materially breached the Settlement Agreement first.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 4549
Page 12 of 16

3. The material breach by Jones excused subsequent performance under the 

Settlement Agreement by Davis.

4. Jones conduct waived performance by Cynthia Davis. 

5. Jones has unclean hands as it relates to the settlement agreement.

6. Cynthia did not have the ability to control Alexandra Davis. 

7. Cynthia Davis was not a Plaintiff in either action under which Jones seeks as 

attorneys fees as damages. 

8. Jones has no damages and has filed this action as a means of retaliating against 

Cynthia Davis.

9. Jones is not able to rely on attorney fees from other actions as damages and any 

recovery of those fees is barred by res judicata.

10. Any additional issues of law and fact raised in Defendant’s Opposed Motion 

for Summary Judgment and Opposed Motion to Exclude Expert.

11. Defendant Cynthia Davis’s affirmative defenses:

Prior material breach by Jones

Duress

Waiver

Release 

Jones has Unclean Hands

No standing – not a party

12. There was no bad faith or intentional conduct of spoliation. 

G. LIST OF WITNESSES

Jones’s Trial Witness List is attached as Exhibit A. Davis’s objections to Plaintiff’s Trial 

Witness List are attached as Exhibit D-1. Spencer’s objections to Plaintiff’s Trial Witness List are

attached as Exhibit D-2. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 4550
Page 13 of 16

Alexandra Davis’s Amended Trial Witness List is attached as Exhibit B. Jones’s objections 

to Davis’s Trial Witness List are attached as Exhibit B-1. 

Alexandra Davis’s Trial Witness List is attached as Exhibit C. Jones’s objections to 

Spencer’s Trial Witness List are attached as Exhibit C-1.

The Parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective objections in order 

to strive to resolve as many issues as possible prior to presenting them to the Court.

H. LIST OF EXHIBITS

Jones’s Amended Trial Exhibit List is attached as Exhibit D. Davis’s and Spencer’s 

objections to Jones’s Trial Exhibit List are attached as Exhibits D-1 and D-2, respectively.23

Davis’s Trial Exhibit List is attached as Exhibit E. Jones’s objections to Davis’s Trial 

Exhibit List are attached as Exhibit E-1.

Spencer’s Trial Exhibit List is attached as Exhibit F. Jones’s objections to Spencer’s Trial 

Exhibit List are attached as Exhibit F-1.

Defendants’ Joint Amended Trial Exhibit list is attached as Exhibit K.

4

2 On May 21, 2024, in accordance with the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 38 at 2), Jones 

served his Trial Exhibit List on all counsel of record. The Court’s Discovery Order required 

Defendants to serve their objections to Jones’s Trial Exhibit List by June 4, 2024, and further stated 

that “objections no so disclosed, other than objections under [Fed. R. Evid. 402 & 403] shall be 

deemed waived.” (See Dkt. 39 at 5 [requiring objections to be served “[w]ithin 14 days” of 

service]) Defendants, however, served their objections on June 18, 2024. Accordingly, the 

objections set forth in Exhibits D-1 and D-2 as to those exhibits are waived. Jones acknowledges 

that certain Exhibits on Jones’s Amended Exhibits, Defendants have not waived objections, other 

than for timeliness of the disclosure, because Davis recently served an Amended Exhibit List on 

Sunday, July 14, 2024, and Jones’s Amended Exhibits relate to that disclosure or the spoliation 

issues which this Court has previously addressed. 

3 Alexandra Davis and Cynthia Davis contend that all objections were timely and in accordance 

with the Court’s orders on file in this case. 

4 Defendants’ Joint Amended Exhibits Offered (Exhibit K) will serve as the operative exhibit list

at trial. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 4551
Page 14 of 16

I. DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

Jones’s Deposition Designations are attached as Exhibit J. 

Davis’s Deposition Designations are attached as Exhibit G. Jones’s objections thereto and 

rebuttal designations are attached as Exhibit G-1.

Spencer’s Deposition Designations are attached as Exhibit F. Jones’s objections thereto 

and rebuttal designations are attached as Exhibit H-1.

The Parties have agreed to exchange amended deposition designations by Wednesday, July 

17, 2024. With any objection and counter-designations due to be served by Thursday, July 18, 

2024. The Parties will identify any disputed issue ripe for the Court’s consideration on Friday, July 

19, 2024. The Parties do not expect to call any witness by deposition for the jury on the first day 

of trial.

J. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM

A copy of the Parties’ amended proposed jury instructions and proposed verdict form is 

attached as Exhibit I. 

K. LIST OF ANY PENDING MOTIONS

Jones’s pending motions.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Alexandra Davis’s Perjury and Failure to Produce 

Documents, Dkt. 200

Davis’s pending motions.

None.

Spencer’s pending motions.

None. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 4552
Page 15 of 16

L. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

The Parties have no objection to the Court’s allotment of time set forth in the Trial 

Procedures Order. 

M. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE LIMITATIONS

None. 

N. TRIAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

The Parties are cooperating to decrease the number of exhibits on their respective trial 

exhibit lists, as well as to narrow the disputed motions in limine. The Parties agree to continue to 

meet and confer to resolve their objections to the other party’s deposition designations, witnesses, 

and exhibits. The Parties further agree to endeavor to enter into stipulations as to the authenticity 

and use of produced documents following the exchange of exhibit lists and objections. 

The Parties have agreed to the following trial management procedures:

1. The parties shall exchange demonstratives intended to be used by no later than 8:00 

p.m. CST the day before the exhibit is intended to be used, absent good cause for 

later disclosure. Any dispute or objection concerning a demonstrative shall be 

lodged with the Court, by ECF and email, no later than 10 p.m. CST, and responses 

by midnight.

2. The parties shall identify the witnesses they intend to call (whether in person or by 

deposition), as well as the order in which the witnesses are to be called, by no later 

than 12:00 p.m. CST the day before the witnesses are intended to be called. For outof-town witnesses, the same disclosures shall be made by no later than 12:00 p.m. 

CST two days before the witnesses are to be called.

3. The parties shall identify all pre-admitted exhibits by 8:00 a.m. CST the day the 

exhibit is intended to be used, as well as all exhibits with objections before the end 

of the previous Court day to allow opportunity to rule on objections not previously 

ruled upon

O. CERTIFICATIONS

The Parties’ undersigned counsel hereby certify and acknowledge the following: 

(1) Full and complete disclosure has been made in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s orders;

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 4553
Page 16 of 16

(2) Discovery limitations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court’s orders have been complied

with5;

(3) Each exhibit in the List of Exhibits herein:

(a) is in existence;

(b) is numbered; and

(c) has been disclosed and shown to opposing 

counsel.

Approved as to form and substance:

Counsel for Plaintiff Jerral W. Jones: /s/ Charles L. Babcock

Charles L. Babcock

Counsel for Defendant Alexandra Davis: /s/ Jay K. Gray

Jay K. Gray

Counsel for Defendant Cynthia Davis

f/k/a Cynthia Davis-Spencer: /s/ Krista Balekian Hayes

Krista “Kris” Balekian Hayes

5 As set forth in Jones’s Motions addressing certain appropriate sanctions for destruction of 

evidence, improper withholding of evidence, and perjured testimony, Jones reserves all rights and 

affirmatively contends that Defendants have wholesale failed to comply with their discovery 

obligations under the Federal and Local Rules and the Orders of this Court. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 216 Filed 07/18/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 4554