Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02037-MRK

Document 78

Filed 06/13/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT KENDRA HEWITT PLAINTIFF vs METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 301CV2037MRK June 10, 2005

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
I. INTRODUCTION The Defendant, Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) moves to preclude the following evidence at trial: (1) any testimony concerning the Levy & Droney Report; and (2) any testimony or use of the notes or journal referenced by the Plaintiff in her deposition. The arguments in support of this Motion are stated below. II. ARGUMENT A. Any testimony or reference to the Levy & Droney Report should be precluded at trial. The Plaintiff did not identify the Levy & Droney Report (Report) as an exhibit in her Trial Memorandum. Given the clear instructions by the Court concerning the submission of exhibits, Report should not be admitted as an exhibit at trial. In addition, the Plaintiff and any witnesses should not be allowed to discuss the Report, nor reference it in any testimony. The Court had occasion to address the issue of the admissibility of the report in two

Case 3:01-cv-02037-MRK

Document 78

Filed 06/13/2005

Page 2 of 4

prior cases concerning the MDC. In both cases, Thomas vs. Metropolitan District Commission and Chavez vs. Metropolitan District Commission, the Court ruled that the Report was not admissible. The most recent ruling was in the Chavez case dated April 21, 2005. Given the prior rulings by the Court, and the Plaintiff's failure to identify the Levy & Droney Report as an exhibit, there should be no testimony concerning this report at trial. B. Any testimony or evidence concerning the Plaintiff's journal should be precluded at trial.

The Plaintiff disclosed in her deposition that she maintained notes or a journal concerning events at the MDC. The deposition at pages 27 and 28 states: Q A Q What did she say that was defamatory? I would have to look back at all my notes. Okay. Do you remember anything offhand at the present time? Or do you

have your notes with you? A Q A Q A No, I didn't ­ no, I don't. I would have to refer to my notes. And what are these notes that you have? What do they consist of? Everything that happened to me at the MDC. Do you keep like a journal? Somewhat. MR. PALERMINO: I guess in discovery we'll want a copy of that. MR. BROWN: I'll have to talk to Rob about that. See Exhibit A attached.

Case 3:01-cv-02037-MRK

Document 78

Filed 06/13/2005

Page 3 of 4

The Plaintiff did not identify her journal as an exhibit in her Trial Memorandum. In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the journal to defense counsel as requested at the Plaintiff's deposition. Given the Court's clear instructions concerning exhibits for trial, and the failure of the Plaintiff to provide defense counsel with a copy of the journal, this document should not be admitted at trial. In addition, the use of the journal and any other testimony concerning it should be precluded at trial. III. CONCLUSION Given the arguments stated above, the defendant requests that the Motion in Limine be granted.

DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION

BY____________________________ ANTHONY J. PALERMINO Their Attorney Law Offices of Anthony J. Palermino 945 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06114 (860) 296-0035 ct05651

Case 3:01-cv-02037-MRK

Document 78

Filed 06/13/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on the 10th day of June, 2005 to Attorney Stuart E. Brown and Attorney Robert Heagney, Hassett & George, P.C., 555 Franklin Avenue, Hartford, CT 06114.

_______________________ Anthony J. Palermino