Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company

Filing 217

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions 202 203 to Strike are DENIED.(Poueymirou, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN
CORP.,
Civil No. 3:12cv1641 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
April 7, 2016
INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE [Doc. ## 202, 203]
Plaintiff

The

Hartford

Roman

Catholic

Diocesan

Corporation’s

(the

“Archdiocese”) moves [Doc. # # 202, 203] to strike Defendant Interstate Fire & Casualty
Company’s (“Interstate”) objections both to the Archdiocese’s Exhibit List for the Joint
Trial Memorandum § 8(B) [Doc. # 201] and to Plaintiff’s “Other Diocese/Archdiocese”
Trial Exhibits 262-321 [Doc. # 200] (collective, the “Supplemental Objections”), on the
grounds that these objections are untimely, as the Court’s scheduling order required
parties to assert their objections prior to the final pretrial conference held on March 9,
2016, yet Interstate filed these objections on March 11, 2016.
Interstate contends that both of the challenged filings were in direct response to
the March 9, 2016 pretrial conference. It asserts that its Memorandum of Authorities to
Support its Objections to the Archdiocese’s Exhibit List for Joint Trial Memorandum §
8(B) [Doc. # 201] was filed in direct response to the Court’s request that the parties
categorize their respective objections along “fault line[s] that w[ould] put bunches of . . .
exhibits or . . . objections in one place” (Def.’s Opp’n Mot. Strike [Doc. # 205] at 2 (citing
Transcript at 62)), and that this filing was merely intended to assist the Court in
connection with its review of the parties’ respective objections and “d[id] not seek to

provide in-depth analysis of case law, nor . . . seek to expand on Interstate’s specific
objections which were previously filed with the Court on March 4, 2016.” (See Trial
Memo [Doc. # 173].) Likewise, it claims that its Objections to the Other
Diocese/Archdiocese Exhibits Included in the Plaintiff’s Exhibit List [Doc. # 200] was
filed in direct response to colloquy during the March 9, 2016 pretrial conference, that
counsel specifically stated that it would be making such a filing, and that it had previously
raised these objections in its filings on March 4, 2016. 1
The Court will deny the Archdiocese’s motions to strike Interstate’s Supplemental
Objections because: (1) Interstate initially complied with the scheduling order by issuing
its objections on March 4, 2016, and its modifications of these objections addressed
questions raised during the March 9, 2016 pretrial conference 2 and thus are not “new”

1

Interstate also objected to these exhibits in its motion [Doc. # 178] in limine to
preclude evidence related to the Archdiocese’s general business practice claim unless and
until the Archdiocese first established an unfair insurance practice in the present case.
During the pretrial conference on March 9, 2016, the Court denied the Defendant’s
request to “bifurcate” this evidence. Accordingly, counsel for Interstate notified the Court
that because it had only objected to a “whole category” of evidence and “had not gone line
by line and made foundation or hearsay or other objections,” it “still need[ed] to do that”
now that the Court had ruled on its bifurcation request. (Tr. at 78–79.)
2

In Interstate’s objections to the “Other Diocese/Archdiocese” exhibits, it
expressly states that it “has included its original chart of objections, but is adding specific
discussion about these exhibits given the Court’s decision not to bifurcate the evidence.”
(Obj. to “Other Diocese/Archdiocese” at 1.) Likewise, in its objections to the
Archdiocese’s Exhibit List, it states that “in an effort to assist the court in its review,” it
has grouped certain documents into similar categories and that its “specific objections to
each of the documents . . . are identical to the objections that were previously submitted
on March 4, 2016.” (Obj. to Ex. List at 1.)
2

nor do they raise “new issues and enlarge[e] the scope” of Interstate’s original objections 3;
and (2) the Archdiocese has not shown prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of April, 2016.

3

The Archdiocese contends that Interstate expanded its objection to Exhibit 118
by arguing that the exhibit should be precluded because the Archdiocese does not have an
expert disclosed on the issue of Canon law. In response, Interstate contends that (1) it is
unaware of any court rule preventing it from challenging an undisclosed witness’s ability
to offer expert testimony at any stage in the proceeding, and (2) during the March 9, 2016
pretrial conference, the Archdiocese’s counsel recognized that this witness’s proposed
testimony could potentially encroach on areas reserved for experts and it was merely
responding to this admission. (See Tr. at 5–6.) As stated in the March 17, 2016 pretrial
conference, this exhibit remains for identification only.
3