Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 127-2

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOSEPH ATTIAS & HAIM ATTIAS Plaintiffs : : : PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT Defendant : : : APRIL 7, 2005 CIVIL NO. 3:03 CV 01009 (SRU)

M EM ORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF M OTION IN LIM INE, FACTS: The case before the court involves a dispute over an insurance policy. Essentially, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant acted improperly in not in bad faith in denying their claim for a fire loss that occurred on November 13, 2002 on property located at 475 New Britain Avenue Hartford, Connecticut. During the course of discovery, the defendant has inquired of the plaintiffs regarding the filing of income tax returns, individually and for various business entities they have been involved in. In the determination of the plaintiffs' insurance claim and for the purposes of this case, whether or not the plaintiffs filed income tax returns has no relevance. Accordingly, the plaintiffs herby move the court to prohibit the defendant from inquiring of the plaintiffs, or any other witness, during testimony or from mentioning during opening or closing arguments whether the plaintiffs or any of their business entities filed income tax returns.

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 127-2

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 2 of 3

ARGUM ENT: Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401 defines relevance as, "any evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." In this case, the filing or existence of income tax returns is not a fact that would help the jury in the determination of any fact or issue before them. At no time has the defendant ever claimed that the denial of the plaintiffs claim had anything to do with whether the plaintiffs ever filed income tax returns or whether they needed to file such returns. Accordingly, any question in that regard will seek irrelevant evidence as such is defined by our rules. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 402 provides that, "evidence which is not relevant is not admissible."

If there is a determination that the filing or lack of filing by the plaintiffs of income tax returns has any relevance, then such relevance is clearly and easily outweighed by its potential of unfair prejudice against the plaintiffs. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 403 provides that, "although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." In this case, it is clear that inquiry into the issue of the filing or lack of filing of income tax returns will not only result in substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs but, in order to combat any such prejudice, the plaintiffs will be required to submit additional evidence which will only cause delay and confusion of the issues before the jury.

CONCLUSION: W herefore, for the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs' Motion in Limine should be granted and the defendant should be prohibited from inquiring of the plaintiffs or any other witness during testimony or from mentioning during opening or closing arguments, whether the plaintiffs, or any of their business entities, filed income tax returns THE PLAINTIFF,

BY Cheryl E. Heffernan Farver & Heffernan 2858 Old Dixwell Avenue Hamden, Connecticut 06518 Telephone: 203-288-8266 2

Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU

Document 127-2

Filed 04/07/2006

Page 3 of 3

Facsimile: 203-288-4702 Fed Bar No.:CT 06473

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid this 7th day of April 2006, to: Heather Adams-Beman, Esq. Joel Rottner, Esq. Skelley Rottner P.C. Corporate Center W est, Suite 305 433 South Main Street W est Hartford, CT 06110

Cheryl E. Heffernan

3