United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 12, 2016, Luis Garcia (“Plaintiff”)
received a debt collection letter from the Law Offices of
Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. (“Defendant” or
“the Schiff firm”). Compl. ¶ 9. The letter
stated a charge-off balance of $663.94 and a current balance
of $565.46. Id. at 11. On May 23, 2016, Mr. Garcia
filed this action, alleging that the debt collection letter
violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
(“FDCPA”). Compl. ¶ 3.
the bench trial on May 20, 2019, Defendant has filed a motion
in limine, Def. Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 71,
and a motion to strike, Mot. to Strike Pl. Opp. to Def. Mot.
in Limine, ECF No. 76.
moves to preclude Mr. Garcia from introducing any evidence
that has not been disclosed during discovery. Def. Mot.
in Limine. Defendant moves to strike Mr.
Garcia's opposition to its motion in limine
because the opposition was filed one day late. Mot. to Strike
Pl. Opp. to Def. Mot. in Limine.
reasons below, Defendant's motion in limine, ECF
No. 71, is DENIED without prejudice to the
possibility of renewal at trial. Defendant's motion to
strike, ECF No. 76, is DENIED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
February of 2016, Mr. Garcia received a debt collection
letter from the Schiff firm. Compl. ¶ 9. The letter
stated that Mr. Garcia owed a charge-off balance of $663.94
and a current balance of $565.46. Compl. ¶ 11; Def. Mot.
for Summ. J., Ex. 4 at 56 [Debt collection letter from Law
Off. of Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. to Luis Garcia, Feb. 12, 2016
(“Garcia Collection Letter”)], reproduced at Mem.
of Law in Supp. of Pl. Summ. J. Mot., ECF No. 57, Ex. A. The
letter listed as zero the post charge-off interest accrued,
post charge-off fees accrued, and post-charge-off payments
and credits. Id. Mr. Garcia then allegedly
“handed [the letter] over to [his] attorney”
along with records of “all the debts” he owed.
Def. Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 4 at 15-16 [Dep. of Luis Garcia,
Sept. 6, 2017] (“Garcia Dep.”).
September 6, 2017, Mr. Garcia was deposed by attorney Dumont
of the Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff P.C. Def. Mem. of Law in
Supp. of Mot. in Limine (“Def. Mem.”),
ECF No. 71-1; Garcia Dep. At that deposition, Mr. Garcia
testified about the debt collection letter and the ensuing
legal case. Id. at 2-4.
Schiff firm now seeks to exclude from trial: 1. Any
“evidence [that] has not been previously disclosed by
plaintiff in response to discovery, ” including damages
evidence, and 2. “any evidence or testimony [that]
contradicts the testimony [that] was given by Mr. Garcia
during his deposition.” Id. at 4.
December 14, 2018, the Court denied the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment. Order, ECF No. 69;
Garcia v. Law Offices of Howard Lee Schiff, P.C.,
No. 3:16-CV-791 (VAB), 2018 WL 6590356 (D. Conn. Dec. 14,
January 28, 2019, Defendant filed its motion in
limine, Def. Mot. in Limine, and set a February
18, 2019 response deadline on the docket.
February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the
motion in limine. Pl. Resp. in Opp. to ...