CHAPTER 2.II. Sample Motions
| Jurisdiction | United States |
II. Sample Motions
A. Motion to Exclude Confusing Evidence
__________
v.
__________
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
__________ JUDICIAL COURT
__________ COUNTY, TEXAS
Comes now___, Plaintiff in this cause, and files this, her Motion to Exclude Confusing Evidence, and in support thereof, Plaintiff would show the Court the following:
This is a personal injury action arising out of a snorkeling accident that occurred on May 29, 2019. The Defendant retained medical doctors to dispute the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages. In correspondence, discovery, and prior hearings, the Defendant has described the defense medical doctors as "independent." This motion seeks to preclude the Defendant from using the term "independent," or any related terminology, to describe said witnesses at the time of trial.
Texas Rule of Evidence 403 states "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.) Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 26 (Tex. 2014) (evidence that raises a risk of prejudice and confusion of the jury should be excluded); Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagan, 453 S.W.3d 454, (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (evidence should have been excluded where its probative value was outweighed by danger of confusion of issues and misleading jury).
In this case, the probative value of referring to defense medical witnesses as "independent" is nonexistent and would only cause undue confusion and give improper weight and credibility to the defense witnesses. Admission of such evidence will necessitate undue consumption of time to present rebuttal and cross-examination about the lack of independence of the defense witnesses. The jury will be misled, and other relevant issues will be confused by the admission of such evidence.
As such, any references to Defendant's physicians as "independent" should be forbidden.
Based upon all of the above, exclusion or reference to the defense medical witnesses as "independent" is proper.
Dated:(Date)
By: __________
(Name of Counsel)
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
(Name of Plaintiff)
B. Motion to Exclude Cumulative Evidence
__________
v.
__________
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
__________ JUDICIAL COURT
__________ COUNTY, TEXAS
Comes now___, Defendant in this cause, and files this Motion to Exclude Cumulative Evidence, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:
This case arises from an alleged excessive use of force by an El Paso County Sheriff's Deputy. The Plaintiff was injured when her vehicle lost control during a high-speed police pursuit. The Plaintiff claims to have incurred a broken ankle, broken ribs, a bruised kidney, and soft tissue neck and back injuries.
In her witness designation list, the Plaintiff identified the following medical witnesses: 1) Dr. Cervical [Orthopedic Surgeon]; 2) Dr. Bones [Chiropractor]; 3) Dr. Fixit [General M.D.]; 4) Dr. Organs [Internal Medicine]; 5) Dr. Superfluous [Orthopedic Surgeon]; 6) Dr. Needless [General M.D.]; and 7) Dr. Overkill [Internal Medicine]. The Plaintiff indicated that the experts' proposed testimonies would encompass "the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries."
By this motion, the Defendant seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Superfluous, Dr. Needless, and Dr. Overkill, based upon the clearly cumulative nature of the expected testimony of these witnesses.
The Court may limit the number of witnesses called to testify on a single question. See McInnes...
To continue reading
Request your trial