Vega v. Rell, CASE NO. 3:09-cv-737 (VLB)

• Decision Date: 03 December 2013
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 3:09-cv-737 (VLB)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: JOE BURGOS VEGA, Plaintiff, v. M. JODI RELL, et al., Defendants.

JOE BURGOS VEGA, Plaintiff, v. M. JODI RELL, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:09-cv-737 (VLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

December 3, 2013

RULING DENYING [Doc. #220] DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By motion dated May 7, 2013 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 7(c), the defendants move for reconsideration of the court's May 1, 2013 order denying their Motion in Limine to Admit Plaintiff's Criminal Conviction. [Dkt. 219]. The movant submits that the court's ruling is contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 609 and case law and that they should be permitted to introduce "essential facts" of the plaintiff's two prior felony convictions solely for the purpose of impeaching his credibility.

Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked and that would reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision. See Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate an issue the court already has decided. See SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D. Conn. 2006), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 505 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2007).

Here, the defendants' motion asserts that the court erred because it did not rule on a basis of law to which the Defendants did not cite in the first instance.Specifically, the defendants contend that the court should reconsider the matter and allow the defendants to offer the evidence based on the previously uncited Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Defendants seek to re-litigate a matter previously raised and on which the court has already ruled. Defendants cite to no intervening law or cited law or facts which the court overlooked. The defendants are not entitled to reconsideration.

Notwithstanding that the defendants are not entitled to reconsideration, the court addresses the merits of their argument. Defendants argue for the first time that any offense is admissible in a civil case if the plaintiff is serving a sentence for that offense at the time of the trial. While the defendants contend that the plain language of Rule 609 makes the conviction admissible, the court's reading of the Rule does not support that interpretation.

Defendants also argue that the convictions are admissible because this is a civil case and these offenses are felonies. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) establishes two thresholds which must be met before a prior felony conviction may be admitted in evidence in a civil case:

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:

(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:

(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and

(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant.

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A). First, the conviction must be for a felony. Second, the probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect, subject to the Rule 403balancing test. Thus the mere fact that the conviction was a felony is not ineluctably determinate of its admissibility.

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, the Court's threshold inquiry is whether the evidence is relevant. Defendants seek to introduce the Plaintiff's convictions for drug, assault and sexual assault offenses for impeachment purposes. As the plaintiff was convicted of drug and assault offenses, rather than fraud, larceny, embezzlement,...