Davis et al v. Connecticut Community Bank

Filing 396

ORDER Overruling Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Response to the Court's May 31, 2013 Order #376 . See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 06/20/13. (Rock, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
STEPHEN R. LEVINSON; RICHARD E.
LAYTON; AND DR. R. LAYTON P.A. 401(K)
PLAN
PLAINTIFF,
v.

:
:
:
: CIVIL ACTION No. 3:09cv269(VLB)
:
:
WESTPORT NATIONAL BANK;
:
DEFENDANT.
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
AUDREY SHORT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
:
FAYE SHORT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
:
TRUSTEE FOR THE FAYE S. ALBERT
:
RETIREMENT PLAN, ALBERT RETIREMENT:
PLAN.
:
:
PLAINTIFFS,
: CIVIL ACTION No.3:09-cv-1955(VLB)
v.
:
:
CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A.
:
DEFENDANT.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------X
SOL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
:
TRUSTEE OF THE SOL DAVIS
:
RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL.
:
:
PLAINTIFFS,
: CIVIL ACTION No. 3:10cv261(VLB
v.
:
:
CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A.
:
JUNE 20, 2013
OWNER OF WESTPORT NATIONAL BANK :
DEFENDANT.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------X

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
TO THE COURT’S MAY 31, 2013 ORDER [Dkt. 376]
Plaintiffs’ objection is denied as untimely, as it was not raised at the time of
the Joint Trial Memorandum, as ordered by the Court. [Levinson Dkt. 464, 488,
510; Short Dkt. 130, 154, 174; Davis Dkt. 111, 121, 266, 289.] The Court has the

1

authority to manage its docket. See Jamison v. Fischer, No. 11-civ.-4697, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144307, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012) (“Courts have inherent
authority to set and enforce deadlines for the management of litigation.”) (citation
omitted). Both parties, to the extent that they did not raise objections in timely
motions in limine as instructed by the Court, have waived their objections. Cf.
Whitserve, LLC v. Godaddy.com, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-948, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
50620, at *10 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2013) (noting that a court has “substantial authority
regarding the management of discovery”) (citation omitted). The parties are
reminded that it is the Court’s responsibility to charge the Jury on the law.
Experts may not reach legal conclusions in their testimony. See Fed. R. Evid.
702; Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359, 363-64 (2d Cir. 1992); Memorandum of
Decision Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion in Limine,
Levinson Dkt. 456. The Court reminds the parties that they should be guided by
the limitations prescribed in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to
prepare their witnesses accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________/s/______________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: June 20, 2013

2