United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
F. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Charter Practices International, LLC (“CPI”) and
Medical Management International, Inc. (“MMI”)
(collectively, “Banfield”), operate company-owned
and franchised Banfield pet hospitals. Banfield brought this
breach of contract action against its former franchisee,
veterinarian Dr. John M. Robb (“Dr. Robb”), and
Dr. Robb asserted four counterclaims. (Doc. #159.) Banfield moved
for summary judgment on Dr. Robb's counterclaims as well
as its own affirmative breach of contract and CUTPA claims.
(Doc. #225, 268.) On March 10, 2016, I filed a recommended
ruling, currently pending before Judge Chatigny, in which I
recommended that Banfield's motion for summary judgment
be denied. (Doc. #335.) Banfield now seeks leave to file
supplemental materials in support of its motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. #340.) For the following reasons, the motion
Background and Pending Motions
motion for summary judgment, Banfield argues that Dr. Robb
violated Connecticut law and the standard of care in
veterinary medicine by, inter alia, administering half doses
of the rabies vaccine to dogs. Banfield asserts that this
violation amounts to a breach of the parties' franchise
agreement, giving Banfield good cause to terminate Dr.
Robb's franchise. Banfield thus contends that summary
judgment is appropriate on its affirmative claim and Dr.
Robb's counterclaim for breach of contract. Upon review
of the parties' submissions, I concluded that there are
genuine disputes of material fact concerning Dr. Robb's
conduct and whether it amounts to a breach of the
parties' franchise agreement. I therefore recommended that
summary judgment be denied.
now asks the court to consider, in support of its motion for
summary judgment, the Connecticut Board of Veterinary
Medicine's draft minutes of its May 4, 2016 meeting.
According to the minutes, the Board determined that Dr. Robb
violated the standard of care while administering and
delegating the administration of the rabies vaccine at his
former Banfield pet hospital. (Doc. #340, p. 7.) Banfield
asserts that the minutes reflect that the Board
“conclusively established” that Dr. Robb violated
the standard of care. (Doc. #340, p. 4.) From this, Banfield
draws the conclusion that there is no factual dispute that
Dr. Robb's violation amounts to a breach of the
parties' franchise agreement, thus giving Banfield good
cause to terminate his franchise. It follows, in
Banfield's view, that summary judgment should be granted.
district court has broad discretion in choosing whether to
admit evidence.” Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d
55, 65 (2d Cir. 1997).
The principles governing admissibility of evidence do not
change on a motion for summary judgment . . . . Rule 56(e)
provides that affidavits in support of and against summary
judgment shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in
evidence. Therefore, only admissible evidence need
be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy,
Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 264 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
order to be admissible, evidence must be properly
authenticated-that is, there must be some ‘evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
proponent claims it is.' Fed.R.Evid. 901(a).”
AT Engine Controls Ltd. v. Goodrich Pump & Engine
Control Sys., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-01539 (JAM), 2014 WL
7270160, at *8 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 2014).
Documents that are not part of the record and that were not
produced in response to disclosure or discovery must be
introduced by an authenticating affidavit or declaration
unless they are self-authenticating and intrinsically
trustworthy on their face. Documents that are merely
discussed in the moving papers or presented without
authentication will not normally be considered by the court.
11 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Fed. Prac. §
56.92 (3d ed. 2016); see, e.g., Monroe v. Bd. of Ed. of
Town of Wolcott, Conn., 65 F.R.D. 641, 645-46 (D. Conn.
1975) (“[C]ourts may consider certified records of
administrative proceedings, [but]. . . unverified documents
and transcripts that have not been made a part of a pleading
cannot be considered in ruling on a motion for summary
offers the minutes by simply attaching a copy to its motion.
The minutes are not self-authenticating and Banfield provides
no evidence to authenticate them. Banfield states, without
elaboration, that “[t]here is nothing speculative or
unreliable about the Board's unanimous decision after
months of hearings. The draft minutes are simply a recording
of what ...