Preview
NNH-CV-22-6126512-S SUPERIOR COURT
JUSTIN RANCIATO J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
Vv AT NEW HAVEN
DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC,
DUNKIN’ BRANDS, INC., DUNKIN’ HON. KEVIN J. MURPHY
VENTURES LLC and
EAST HAVEN DONUTS, INC. MAY 02, 2024
MOTION TO PRECLUDE PHOTO OF COFEE CUP WITH THERMOMETER
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 15-13, the defendants hereby
move this honorable court to preclude any photograph depicting a coffee cup with a
thermometer. (See Exhibit A, a copy of the photograph in question).
! BACKGROUND
The defendants were provided several photographs depicting plaintiff's alleged
injuries. Among those photographs is a photo of a Dukin Donuts Coffee cup with a
thermometer placed inside depicting the temperature reading. Plaintiff was shown this
photograph at his deposition and testified that he likely took that photo. (See Exhibit B,
Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 73 — 74). He further testified that this photo does not depict the
same cup of coffee that spilled on his lap. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pg. 74,
lines 9 — 10). Lastly. plaintiff also testified that he does not know when this photo was
taken. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 74 — 75). At this time, plaintiff's counsel
has indicated that she may use this photograph at trial.
“{T]he motion in limine . . . has generally been used by Connecticut courts to
invoke a trial judge’s inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude
evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
party to a fair trial.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Levesque
Builders, Inc. v. Caldwell Hoerle, 49 Conn. App. 751, 761 (1998). “It is well established
that the trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility [and relevancy] of
evidence.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Potter v. Chicago
Pneumatic Too! Co., 241 Conn. 199, 259 (1997). “[T]he motion in limine was developed
as a procedural tool used to ensure that potentially prejudicial evidentiary matters are
not discussed in the presence of the jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) TCR
Manchester Limited Partnership v. Board of Tax Review Town of Manchester, 1994 WL
116589 (Conn. Super) (Mar. 4, 1994, Corradino, J.). “Whether to exclude [evidence] . . .
is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Girard v. Weiss, 43 Conn
App. 397, 411, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 946 (1996).
Uh. ARGUMENT
The plaintiff should be precluded from entering this photograph into evidence
because the defendant would be severely prejudiced. As noted above, plaintiff admits
that this photo does not depict the same cup of coffee that spilled on his lap. (See
Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pg. 74, lines 9 — 10). Plaintiff further testified that he does
not know when this photo was taken. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 74 — 75).
Lastly, the temperature of the coffee is not at issue in this case. Plaintiff's sole
allegation against the defendant is that the lid on the hot coffee cup was improperly
secured. Allowing this photograph into evidence at trial would raise concerns that are
not at issue. Thus, making it inadmissible and not relevant. Accordingly, the photograph
depicting the hot coffee cup with the thermometer should be precluded.
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this
Motion in Limine and preclude the subject photograph from being entered into evidence.
THE DEFENDANTS,
EAST HAVEN DONUTS, INC., ET AL
BY: Is|_ 443169
Dimple Kumar, Esq.
Schwerzmann & Galullo
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 102
Farmington, CT 06032
Juris No. 433687
Tel. 860-507-2070
Fax 855-515-8239
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on
this 02"4 day of May, 2024 to all counsel and pro se parties of record and that written
consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and pro se parties of
record who were electronically served including:
Gabrielle Hindin, Esq.
Goff Law Group, LLC
433 South Main Street, Ste. 328
West Hartford, CT 06110
efile@gofflawgroup.net
gabrielle@gofflawgroup.net
pam@GoffLawGroup.net
tracy@gofflawgroup.net
Is| 443169
Dimple Kumar, Esq.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
Exhibit — A
Thermometer Photo
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
x
—_
er
SS
a
a
ON
Exhibit — B
Plaintiffs Deposition Transcript
Trial Date: 05/06/2024
Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al
Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023
1 DOCKET NO. NNH-CV-22-6126512-S SUPERIOR COURT
JUSTIN RANCIATO J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
vs.
DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING, LLC, AT NEW HAVEN
DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC., DUNKIN'
VENTURES, LLC, and EAST HAVEN
DONUTS, INC.
10
11
12
13
14 REMOTE DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN RANCIATO
25: JUNE 22, 2023
16 10:05 a.m.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.brandonLT.com
860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 1
Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al
Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023
APPEARANCES
DIMPLE KUMAR, ESQUIRE
Schwerzmann & Galullo
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 102
Farmington, CT 06032
(860) 507-2070
dimple.kumar@selective.com
Counsel for Defendants
10
11 GABRIELLE HINDIN, ESQUIRE
12 Goff Law Group
13 433 South Main Street, Suite 328
14 West Hartford, CT 06110
15 (203) 399-0000
16 gabrielle@gofflawgroup.net
17 Counsel for Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.brandonLT.com
860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 2
Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al
Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023
drive-thru, or did you walk in?
A I probably -- I wouldn't have walked in there.
Q. I'm gonna show you another image that's been
provided to your attorneys. I want you to just take a
look. And when you are done looking at it, let me know.
It should be up on your screen.
Are you able to see it, Mr. Ranciato?
A Yeah, I see that.
MR. KUMAR: Okay. Ms. Guzman, is this
10 Number 3 or 4?
11 THE REPORTER: 4
12 MR. KUMAR: Okay, thank you.
13 (Defendant's Exhibit 4, Photograph, marked
14 for identification.)
15 BY MR. KUMAR:
16 Now, Mr. Ranciato, this is Defendant's Exhibit 4.
17 I want you to take a look at it and tell me what you see
18 This is a food thermometer with a cup of Dunkin'
19 coffee and showing that it's 160 degrees.
20 Q. So is it fair to say it's a photo of a coffee cup
21 witha temperature reading?
22 Yes.
23 Do you know who took this photo?
24 A. No, but it looks like I probably did.
25 Q. What makes you think it's you?
www.brandonLT.com
860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page:73
Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al
Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023
A Because that's what I would do. I was trying to
see how hot the coffee was coming out of there.
Q You said it might be you.
Are you sure it's you, or you're not --
A Yeah I'm pretty sure that's me. I don't know who
else would be doing that. I did that. I took a pick
course of that, because I wanted to see how hot the coffee
was coming out of there.
Q. Is this the same coffee cup that spilled on you?
10 A No.
11 Q Do you think it's from the same drive-thru and the
12 same Dunkin' Donuts?
13 A. That is from that Dunkin! Donuts.
14 Q The same one where the incident took place.
a5 Correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q. When was this taken?
18 A Couldn't tell you the exact date or time.
19 Q Are you able to estimate -- give me your best
20 estimate if it was the next day, two weeks after the
21 incident, two months, or something else?
22 A It would be I wouldn't never waited two months
23 to do anything like that. I had no reason to know -- want
24 to know why how hot Dunkin' Donuts coffee was.
25 Q. If it's not two months, would it be the next day?
www.brandonLT.com
860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 74
Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al
Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023
Would it be next week? Or something else?
A It would have been soon to when that occurrence
happened, yes.
Q So it could be the next day?
A It could be, yes.
Q. Could be next week?
A Yeah. I wouldn't likely. I don't think it took
me that long to think of that.
Q As far as you know, between one to three days
10 after the incident. Is that fair to say?
11 A I don't know. Sometime after the incident I took
12 a temperature reading of the coffee coming out of there.
13 So I don't know exactly if it was a day, if it was exactly
14 when that I took that. I mean...
1s Q Do you know if it was the same day of the
16 incident?
17 A I don't know. Don't know.
18 Q You already stated that it's you at least holding
19 the thermometer. Is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay. And who would be taking the photo, sir?
22 A Probably me, it looks like. Who else would be
23 taking the picture?
24 Q And would you have used your cell phone or a
25 different camera?
www.brandonLT.com
860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 75
Preview
NNH-CV-22-6126512-S SUPERIOR COURT JUSTIN RANCIATO J.D. OF NEW HAVEN Vv AT NEW HAVEN DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC, DUNKIN’ BRANDS, INC., DUNKIN’ HON. KEVIN J. MURPHY VENTURES LLC and EAST HAVEN DONUTS, INC. MAY 02, 2024 MOTION TO PRECLUDE PHOTO OF COFEE CUP WITH THERMOMETER Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 15-13, the defendants hereby move this honorable court to preclude any photograph depicting a coffee cup with a thermometer. (See Exhibit A, a copy of the photograph in question). ! BACKGROUND The defendants were provided several photographs depicting plaintiff's alleged injuries. Among those photographs is a photo of a Dukin Donuts Coffee cup with a thermometer placed inside depicting the temperature reading. Plaintiff was shown this photograph at his deposition and testified that he likely took that photo. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 73 — 74). He further testified that this photo does not depict the same cup of coffee that spilled on his lap. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pg. 74, lines 9 — 10). Lastly. plaintiff also testified that he does not know when this photo was taken. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 74 — 75). At this time, plaintiff's counsel has indicated that she may use this photograph at trial. “{T]he motion in limine . . . has generally been used by Connecticut courts to invoke a trial judge’s inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any Trial Date: 05/06/2024 party to a fair trial.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Levesque Builders, Inc. v. Caldwell Hoerle, 49 Conn. App. 751, 761 (1998). “It is well established that the trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility [and relevancy] of evidence.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Too! Co., 241 Conn. 199, 259 (1997). “[T]he motion in limine was developed as a procedural tool used to ensure that potentially prejudicial evidentiary matters are not discussed in the presence of the jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) TCR Manchester Limited Partnership v. Board of Tax Review Town of Manchester, 1994 WL 116589 (Conn. Super) (Mar. 4, 1994, Corradino, J.). “Whether to exclude [evidence] . . . is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Girard v. Weiss, 43 Conn App. 397, 411, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 946 (1996). Uh. ARGUMENT The plaintiff should be precluded from entering this photograph into evidence because the defendant would be severely prejudiced. As noted above, plaintiff admits that this photo does not depict the same cup of coffee that spilled on his lap. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pg. 74, lines 9 — 10). Plaintiff further testified that he does not know when this photo was taken. (See Exhibit B, Plaintiff Transcript, pgs. 74 — 75). Lastly, the temperature of the coffee is not at issue in this case. Plaintiff's sole allegation against the defendant is that the lid on the hot coffee cup was improperly secured. Allowing this photograph into evidence at trial would raise concerns that are not at issue. Thus, making it inadmissible and not relevant. Accordingly, the photograph depicting the hot coffee cup with the thermometer should be precluded. Trial Date: 05/06/2024 WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion in Limine and preclude the subject photograph from being entered into evidence. THE DEFENDANTS, EAST HAVEN DONUTS, INC., ET AL BY: Is|_ 443169 Dimple Kumar, Esq. Schwerzmann & Galullo 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 102 Farmington, CT 06032 Juris No. 433687 Tel. 860-507-2070 Fax 855-515-8239 Trial Date: 05/06/2024 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on this 02"4 day of May, 2024 to all counsel and pro se parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and pro se parties of record who were electronically served including: Gabrielle Hindin, Esq. Goff Law Group, LLC 433 South Main Street, Ste. 328 West Hartford, CT 06110 efile@gofflawgroup.net gabrielle@gofflawgroup.net pam@GoffLawGroup.net tracy@gofflawgroup.net Is| 443169 Dimple Kumar, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court Trial Date: 05/06/2024 Exhibit — A Thermometer Photo Trial Date: 05/06/2024 x —_ er SS a a ON Exhibit — B Plaintiffs Deposition Transcript Trial Date: 05/06/2024 Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023 1 DOCKET NO. NNH-CV-22-6126512-S SUPERIOR COURT JUSTIN RANCIATO J.D. OF NEW HAVEN vs. DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING, LLC, AT NEW HAVEN DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC., DUNKIN' VENTURES, LLC, and EAST HAVEN DONUTS, INC. 10 11 12 13 14 REMOTE DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN RANCIATO 25: JUNE 22, 2023 16 10:05 a.m. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.brandonLT.com 860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 1 Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023 APPEARANCES DIMPLE KUMAR, ESQUIRE Schwerzmann & Galullo 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 102 Farmington, CT 06032 (860) 507-2070 dimple.kumar@selective.com Counsel for Defendants 10 11 GABRIELLE HINDIN, ESQUIRE 12 Goff Law Group 13 433 South Main Street, Suite 328 14 West Hartford, CT 06110 15 (203) 399-0000 16 gabrielle@gofflawgroup.net 17 Counsel for Plaintiff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.brandonLT.com 860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 2 Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023 drive-thru, or did you walk in? A I probably -- I wouldn't have walked in there. Q. I'm gonna show you another image that's been provided to your attorneys. I want you to just take a look. And when you are done looking at it, let me know. It should be up on your screen. Are you able to see it, Mr. Ranciato? A Yeah, I see that. MR. KUMAR: Okay. Ms. Guzman, is this 10 Number 3 or 4? 11 THE REPORTER: 4 12 MR. KUMAR: Okay, thank you. 13 (Defendant's Exhibit 4, Photograph, marked 14 for identification.) 15 BY MR. KUMAR: 16 Now, Mr. Ranciato, this is Defendant's Exhibit 4. 17 I want you to take a look at it and tell me what you see 18 This is a food thermometer with a cup of Dunkin' 19 coffee and showing that it's 160 degrees. 20 Q. So is it fair to say it's a photo of a coffee cup 21 witha temperature reading? 22 Yes. 23 Do you know who took this photo? 24 A. No, but it looks like I probably did. 25 Q. What makes you think it's you? www.brandonLT.com 860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page:73 Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023 A Because that's what I would do. I was trying to see how hot the coffee was coming out of there. Q You said it might be you. Are you sure it's you, or you're not -- A Yeah I'm pretty sure that's me. I don't know who else would be doing that. I did that. I took a pick course of that, because I wanted to see how hot the coffee was coming out of there. Q. Is this the same coffee cup that spilled on you? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you think it's from the same drive-thru and the 12 same Dunkin' Donuts? 13 A. That is from that Dunkin! Donuts. 14 Q The same one where the incident took place. a5 Correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q. When was this taken? 18 A Couldn't tell you the exact date or time. 19 Q Are you able to estimate -- give me your best 20 estimate if it was the next day, two weeks after the 21 incident, two months, or something else? 22 A It would be I wouldn't never waited two months 23 to do anything like that. I had no reason to know -- want 24 to know why how hot Dunkin' Donuts coffee was. 25 Q. If it's not two months, would it be the next day? www.brandonLT.com 860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 74 Justin Ranciato v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al Justin Ranciato Job Date:6/22/2023 Would it be next week? Or something else? A It would have been soon to when that occurrence happened, yes. Q So it could be the next day? A It could be, yes. Q. Could be next week? A Yeah. I wouldn't likely. I don't think it took me that long to think of that. Q As far as you know, between one to three days 10 after the incident. Is that fair to say? 11 A I don't know. Sometime after the incident I took 12 a temperature reading of the coffee coming out of there. 13 So I don't know exactly if it was a day, if it was exactly 14 when that I took that. I mean... 1s Q Do you know if it was the same day of the 16 incident? 17 A I don't know. Don't know. 18 Q You already stated that it's you at least holding 19 the thermometer. Is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Okay. And who would be taking the photo, sir? 22 A Probably me, it looks like. Who else would be 23 taking the picture? 24 Q And would you have used your cell phone or a 25 different camera? www.brandonLT.com 860-528-2244 Brandon Legal Tech, LLC Page: 75