DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

ALEXANDRA DAVIS, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

vs. 

JERRAL W. JONES, DALLAS COWBOYS 

FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD., JAMES 

WILKINSON, TRAILRUNNER 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DONALD 

JACK, JR., 

Defendants/Cross-Plaintiff,

vs. 

CYNTHIA DAVIS-SPENCER, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION 

Defendants Jerral W. Jones, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., James Wilkinson, 

TrailRunner International, LLC, and Donald Jack, Jr., seek limited protection to move a single 

deposition date, which Plaintiff has agreed to move but on certain conditions, which Defendants 

seek protection for reasons of efficiency and fairness: 

Shortly after the hearing on Defendants’ original Motion to Dismiss and Scheduling 

Conference, the Parties promptly conferred on deposition dates and agreed to begin with Plaintiff’s 

deposition, followed by Defendants Wilkinson and TrailRunner, Defendant Jack in December, and 

then Defendant Jones in January. To ensure discovery would not delay these depositions, 

Defendants undertook extensive productions under the Court’s discovery order and produced 

thousands of documents on October 30, 2023. 

But on October 31, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s entire case and granted leave to 

amend only one essential element (actual malice) of one remaining claim regarding the Second 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 948
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 2 

ESPN Article. See Dkt. 50. Thus, because Plaintiff’s claims were no longer pending, the scheduled 

depositions of Plaintiff, Wilkinson, and TrailRunner were subsequently cancelled. In light of these 

cancellations, as well as the parties’ agreement to sequence depositions in the above manner, 

Defendants believed that Jack’s depositions—which was originally set for tomorrow, December 

5, 2023—was similarly cancelled and not going forward. 

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. 51. Ten 

days later, the parties revisited discussions regarding the timing and sequencing of depositions. 

During and prior to these talks, Defendants raised potential discovery issues regarding Plaintiff’s 

and Third-Party Defendant’s failure to produce complete documents in their disclosures, and 

requested that Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant supplement their productions by December 6th. 

Given these incomplete productions, Defendants were under the impression that all parties 

understood Jack’s deposition—which was scheduled one day before the supplementation—would 

not be going forward. Defendants also explained that a new deposition schedule would be needed, 

including a revised date for Jack’s deposition.1

 While Plaintiff agreed to reset Jack’s deposition, 

she insisted that Jack’s deposition take place “in December” and would not commit to a new date 

for her own deposition prior to Defendants’ depositions. Plaintiff’s demand, however, is not 

feasible given the posture of this case, and would greatly prejudice Defendants’ ability to prepare 

Jack for that deposition. 

Defendants therefore respectfully request that depositions in this case be scheduled in their 

original agreed order (Plaintiff, Wilkinson, TrailRunner, Jack, and Jones) after issue is joined on 

 1

 In fairness it should be noted that Plaintiff offered a deposition date on the Wednesday before (or, possibly, 

the Sunday after) Thanksgiving while Plaintiff was visiting Dallas for the holiday. But the undersigned counsel was 

visiting with family out of town on those dates and there had not (and has not) been resolution of the document issue 

previously mentioned. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 949
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 3 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Motion, Response, Reply, 

Sur-Reply—if any—and argument). Good cause exists for this request. 

First, Defendants will be filing their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint on December 8, 2023. See Dkts. 55, 56. Absent extensions, Plaintiff’s response will be 

due on December 22, 2023, and Defendants’ reply will be due on December 29, 2023. See E.D. 

Tex. Local R. CV-7(e)–(f). Defendants will also seek an oral hearing on the motion. And still 

further, Third-Party Defendant’s counsel has represented that she is in a jury trial this week, and 

that she intends to produce additional disclosures on December 15, 2023. Jack cannot be 

reasonably expected to prepare for his deposition without (1) time to review Plaintiff’s and ThirdParty Defendant’s supplemental productions, and (2) notice of the grounds on which Plaintiff 

intends to oppose dismissal of her First Amended Complaint (either as to the claims against him 

or the other Defendants for which he may or may not have relevant information or be questioned 

about). Indeed, Defendants are entitled to understand Plaintiff’s purported basis for resisting 

dismissal before submitting to depositions. 

In addition, the partial discovery conducted to date has revealed that Plaintiff, contrary to 

her representations, did seek money from Jones not only at the November 2017 dinner meeting 

when she read a demand letter to Jack, but also every year thereafter.2

 Given the inconsistencies 

between these newly-discovered documents and Plaintiff’s prior representations in pleadings and 

before the Court, it is essential that Plaintiff be deposed first to ensure Defendants are not shooting 

at a moving target. See Blackmon v. Bracken Constr. Co., Inc., No. CV 18-142-BAJ-SDJ, 2020 

 2

 In their forthcoming motion to dismiss, Defendants will argue that Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law 

because, among other grounds, Plaintiff consistently demanded money from Jones when she was not entitled to it but 

then, without telling Jones, supposedly abandoned any monetary motive such that it was somehow defamatory to say 

she sought his money. In addition, Defendants will argue that Plaintiff’s pleading (or lack thereof) of plausible facts 

regarding Constitutional actual malice is utterly insufficient. 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 950
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 4 

WL 6065520, at *4 (M.D. La. Oct. 14, 2020) (ordering plaintiff to be deposed first where, inter 

alia, discovery had revealed “information that may be inconsistent with [plaintiff’s] allegations”); 

see also Baggs v. Highland Towing, L.L.C., No. CIV. A. 99-1318, 1999 WL 539459, at *2 (E.D. 

La. July 22, 1999) (“[I]t makes sense in this case that the party whose allegations commenced the 

lawsuit should be deposed first so that a full understanding of his claims may be obtained before 

other discovery occurs.”); Renlund v. Radio Sys. Corp., No. 21-CV-720 (DWF/HB), 2021 WL 

6881287, at *6 (D. Minn. July 6, 2021) (recognizing the “value” of defendant having plaintiff’s 

deposition testimony “in order to prepare [defendants’ witnesses] for their depositions” and 

ordering that plaintiff’s deposition be taken before plaintiff could depose defendant’s witnesses). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this request. Indeed, she already agreed to 

sequence discovery in the manner requested herein. See Arnold v. Crossroads Hospice of 

Tennessee, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02779-JTF-CGC, 2019 WL 11583412, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 18, 

2019) (finding plaintiff had already agreed to be deposed first and rejecting plaintiff’s later efforts 

to “unilaterally stray from this mutual agreement”). Additionally, any concerns regarding delay 

are overstated, as there are nearly five months remaining for fact discovery under the original 

docket control order. 

REQUESTED RELIEF

Defendants ask that: (1) the Jack deposition be continued temporarily without conditions 

to an agreed date; (2) depositions only begin after the motion to dismiss is argued; and (3) when 

depositions commence they follow the same order as previously agreed: Plaintiff, Wilkinson, 

TrailRunner, Jack, and Jones and (4) such other relief as to which Defendants may be entitled. 

 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 951
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 5 

Dated: December 4, 2023 

FOLSOM ADR PLLC 

/s/ David Folsom 

David Folsom 

State Bar No. 07210800 

david@folsomadr.com 

6002-B Summerfield Dr. 

Texarkana, TX 75503 

(903) 277-7303 

JACKSON WALKER LLP 

/s/:Charles L. Babcock 

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 

(713) 752-4221 - Fax 

David T. Moran 

State Bar No. 14419400 

dmoran@jw.com 

Edwin Buffmire 

State Bar No. 24078283 

ebuffmire@jw.com 

Cody Martinez 

State Bar No. 24102146 

cmartinez@jw.com 

2323 Ross Avenue 

Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201 

(214) 953-6000 

(214) 953-5822 – Fax 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JERRAL W. JONES, DALLAS COWBOYS 

FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD., JAMES WILKINSON, TRAILRUNNER 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND DONALD JACK, JR.

 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 952
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT JACK’S DEPOSITION – 6 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

On December 4, 2023, the undersigned conferred with Jay Gray, counsel for Plaintiff, and 

Kris Hayes, counsel for Third-Party Defendant about the merits of this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel 

partially opposes the requested relief sought in this motion. Third-Party Defendant’s counsel 

opposes all relief. 

/s/ Edwin Buffmire 

Edwin Buffmire 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On December 4, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of 

the court of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing 

system of the court. I hereby certify that I will serve all counsel of record electronically or by 

another manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

/s/ Edwin Buffmire 

Edwin Buffmire 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 57 Filed 12/04/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 953