United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [DOCS.
#72, #73, #76]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Raymond Donnelly and H. Nelson Abarzua(hereinafter the
“firefighter defendants”) have filed a motion in
limine seeking to preclude plaintiff from introducing at
trial (1) any evidence of economic damages and (2) the report
of Dr. Terrance Donahue. [Doc. #72]. Defendant Todd
Brouillette (“defendant Brouillette”) has filed
two motions in limine. [Docs. #73, #76]. The first motion
seeks “to exclude any expert testimony of Dr. Balazs
Somogyi, MD, or Doctor Terrance Donahue, MD, written or
verbal[.]” Doc. #73 at 1. The second motion seeks
“to exclude any evidence, testimony or argument that
the Plaintiff has suffered economic loss or damages because
no documentation or evidence of such has been disclosed in
the discovery process[.]” Doc. #76 at 1. Plaintiff
Christopher Caporaso (“plaintiff”) has not
responded to defendants' motions in limine. For the reasons
articulated below, defendants' motions in limine
[Docs. #72, #73, #76] are GRANTED,
the Court reserves ruling until the final pre-trial
conference and/or trial concerning whether plaintiff may
testify about his claimed economic damages related to the
alleged loss of maple syrup.
Court presumes familiarity with the factual background of
this matter, and details only that procedural background
relevant to the below discussion.
April 1, 2016, plaintiff filed this action against defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. [Doc. #1]. On June 20,
2016, Judge Alfred V. Covello entered a Scheduling Order
(hereinafter the “Scheduling Order”) in this
matter. [Doc. #13]. The Scheduling Order required, in
pertinent part, that: (1) all discovery, including
depositions of expert witnesses, be completed on or before
March 15, 2017; (2) plaintiff disclose the identity of any
expert witness he may use at trial, along with that
expert's written report, on or before October 15, 2016;
and (3) any party with a claim for damages provide a damages
analysis to the opposing party on or before October 15, 2016.
See Doc. #13 at 1.
deadline by which plaintiff was to produce his damages
analysis was extended to October 28, 2016. See Docs. #21,
#22. The Scheduling Order was also extended to permit the
parties until June 2, 2017, to depose fact witnesses. See
Docs. #24, #25. The parties did not seek to extend any other
deadlines. On July 6, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Trial
Memorandum. [Doc. #33].
6, 2019, the parties filed a Consent to Jurisdiction by
United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. #56]. On that same
date, this case was transferred to the undersigned. [Doc.
#57]. On June 11, 2019, the undersigned entered a Final
Pre-Trial Scheduling Order. [Doc. #62]. In pertinent part,
that Order required that on or before the close of business
on June 19, 2019, the parties file any amendments to the
original Joint Trial Memorandum. Id. at 2. The Order
also required that any motions in limine be filed by the
close of business on August 1, 2019, and any oppositions to
those motions be filed by the close of business on August 16,
2019. See Id. at 3.
filed their motions in limine on July 31, 2019. See Docs.
#72, #73, #76. On that same date, the Court entered an Order
noting that in accordance with the Final Pre-Trial Scheduling
Order, any responses to the motions in limine were due on or
before August 16, 2019. See Doc. #74. The Court cautioned:
“Failure to file an objection to the Motions in Limine
may result in the motions being granted absent
objection.” Id. (sic). Plaintiff has failed to
file any objections to the pending motions in limine.
selection is scheduled for September 30, 2019, with trial to
begin on October 1, 2019. See Doc. #61.
purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the court to rule
in advance of trial on the admissibility of anticipated
evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40
n.2 (1984). “The purpose of an in limine motion is to
aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in
advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted
evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial,
without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the
trial.” Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141
(2d Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). “Evidence should be excluded on a motion in
limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all
potential grounds.” Jean-Laurent v. Hennessy,
840 F.Supp.2d 529, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). “Indeed, courts
considering a motion in limine may reserve judgment until
trial, so that the motion is placed in the appropriate
factual context.” Id. “[T]he court's
ruling regarding a motion in limine is ‘subject to
change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual
testimony differs from what was [expected].'”
Id. (quoting Luce, 469 U.S. at 41).
generally seek to preclude plaintiff from introducing at
trial: (1) evidence of any economic damages; and (2) expert
testimony (both written and verbal) and reports. See
generally Docs. #72, #73, #76. Defendants contend that such
evidence should be excluded from trial because it was not
produced or otherwise disclosed during the ...