Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 436

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SHAWN POULIOT, Plaintiff v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02 CV 1302 (JCH) JUDGE JANET C. HALL

PAUL ARPIN VAN LINES, INC. et al. Defendants

July 30, 2005

DEFENDANTS PAUL ARPIN VAN LINES, INC.'S AND ARPIN LOGISTICS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF AND REFERENCE TO REPAIRS TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW INTRODUCTION Defendants, Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. and Arpin Logistics, Inc., hereinafter ("Arpin") move in limine for a ruling excluding evidence of and reference to repairs to the subject vehicle. The reasons that such evidence is inadmissible as set forth below. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action arises out of an October 23, 2001 accident in which Plaintiff was injured while unloading a truck owned by Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. The truck in question was transferred from West Virginia to Rhode Island prior to the incident in question. While in West Virginia, it had certain general repairs and maintenance.1 In any event, the repairs to the vehicle made prior to the incident are not relevant to the issues of this case and should therefore be excluded.

No exhibits referencing repairs have been listed and exchanged as exhibits for trial by the parties as required by Paragraph 11 of the Final Pretrial Order.

1

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 436

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 2 of 4

DISCUSSION Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that "[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Relevant evidence is defined by Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action and more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The definition of relevant evidence contains two distinct requirements. First, the evidence must be probative of the fact or issue it is offered to prove; second the fact or issue to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the outcome of the action. See United States v. D.S. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 1989) quoting United State v. Hall, 653 F.2d 1002, 1005 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, any evidence of repairs prior to the incident is neither probative to the facts or issues in this matter nor does it prove any fact or issue that is of any consequence to the outcome of the action. No witness has related any repairs to the mechanism of this accident. As such they are neither probative of any fact or issue that is to be proven in this case nor are they related to any fact or issue that is of consequence to the outcome of the action. As such, the repairs records should be excluded. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, the repair records for the subject vehicle are inadmissible.

2

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 436

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 3 of 4

Dated this 30th day of July, 2005. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf Harold J. Friedman, Esq. CT 23785 Karen Frink Wolf, Esq. CT 26494 FRIEDMAN GAYTHWAITE WOLF & LEAVITT Six City Center, P.O. Box 4726 Portland, ME 04112-4726 (207) 761-0900 (207) 761-0186 (Fax) [email protected] [email protected]

3

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 436

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed via U.S. First Class Mail this 30th day of July, 2005 to the following:

Michael A. Stratton, Esq. Stratton Faxon 59 Elm Street New Haven, CT 06510 Thomas J. Grady, Esq. Lenihan Grady & Steele 6 Canal Street PO Box 541 Westerly, RI 02891-0541

Roland F. Moots, Jr., Esq. Moots, Pellegrini, Spillane & Mannion 46 Main Street, PO BOX 1319 New Milford, CT 06776-1319

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf Karen Frink Wolf, Esq. CT 26494

4