Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA Document 105 Filed O4/11/2005 Page 1 of 3
i ` ` ` l
United .fii&iir5.&i ·ii‘i:i·:r¤;*.;z.r
..,; !
klz. 3.,., I
" ‘ —··_,__’ I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT J' w‘i’=¥i¥¤l °°"`“I”`Tf·· ,
CECIL YOUNG :
Plaintiff · CIV No. 3:03CV'iO10 (JBA) _
VS.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT HOUSING
AUTHORITY, ET AL :
Defendants April 11, 2005
MOTION IN LIMINE
The Plaintiff in the above entitled action hereby requests this Court to rule
that the Defendant, Bridgeport Housing Authority, be prevented from referring or
asking the Plaintiff questions which will illicit evidence with regards to any
allegations to an alleged use of marijuana by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has
informed the Plaintiff that he intends to place this issue before the jury under the l
guise that it mitigates the Plaintiffs claims for damages.
This issue is derived from the Personnel File of the City of Bridgeport
wherein there is reference to the fact the Plaintiff was required to take more than
one drug test upon rehirihg by the City of Bridgeport ih January cf 2004.
The Plaintiff objects to this evidence first because the evidence will show
that the Plaintiff worked three (3) jobs simultaneously between the relevant
l





i
_ __ Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA Document 105 Filed O4/11/2005 Page 2 of 3 I
E
periods of time herein, one job with the Bridgeport Housing Authority, the other
with the City of Bridgeport and the last being a City sheriff. The Plaintiff argues I
that the loss of one of these jobs is not mitigated by the fact that he is employed E
or not employed in the other two capacities. Therefore the timing of the hiring of
the Plaintiff by the City of Bridgeport is not relevant to mitigation as to the
Housing Authority. The next argument we would submit is that there is clearly no
‘ proper foundation to the validity or invalidity of the drug tests administered in the
Personnel File of the City of Bridgeport. Lastly, the prejudicial effect of this
testimony far out weighs the probative value it may have to the jury. i
In light of the fact that it would appear that the Plaintiff and the City of
Bridgeport have resolved their issues it becomes apparent that the Defendant,
Bridgeport Housing Authority’s should not be allowed to utilize mitigation as a
back door method of admissibility for this evidence. l
,#’f
THE PLAINTIFF _ '
_,¢”' / .» . .... .. ,
TH0 ’‘t“'
DALY, IHING & BOCHANIS
1115 Nl in Street, Suite 710
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
Telephone No. (203) 333-8500
Federal Juris No. 08235
i
i
i
i
H
E


Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA Document 105 Filed O4/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that copies of the foregoing have been hand—deIivered on N
_ this the 11"‘ day of April, 2005 to:
Michael T. Ryan, Esq. I
James Nlahar, Esq.
Ryan, Ryan, Johnson 8. Deluca, LLP
80 Fourth Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06906
Barbara Brazzei-Massaro
Associate City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney =
999 Broad Street , .7 /
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Z
-r.·'f"
BY ·" f, ___... .. - ,
T@O ` S .`W IHING .......... , .... . E
_ ____, __
1
i