UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DIANE M. GARRITY, PAUL G. GARRITY, JR., and PAUL M. STERCZALA, as fiduciaries of the Estate of Paul G. Garrity, Sr., Defendants.

No. 3:15-CV-243(MPS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92561

June 4, 2018, Decided

June 4, 2018, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: United States v. Garrity, 187 F. Supp. 3d 350, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66372 (D. Conn., May 20, 2016)

CORE TERMS: hearsay, authenticity, relevance, predecessor, signature, ancient documents, account numbers, narrative, hearsay objections, reporting, completeness, judicial admissions, mental capacity, redacted, authenticated, admissible, quotation, general information, inasmuch, dispose, admit, trier of fact, appearance, misleading, selective, introduce, probative value, reasons stated, willfulness, beneficial

COUNSEL: [*1] For USA, Plaintiff: Christine L. Sciarrino, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office-NH, New Haven, CT; Steven Marcus Dean, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice-Tax Div 555 4th St, CTS-Northern Region, Washington, DC; Carl Lewis Moore, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC; Kari Powell, Tax, Washington, DC; Philip Leonard Bednar, U.S. Department Of Justice Tax Div Box 55 Ben F St DC, Tax Division, Washington, DC.

For Diane M. Garrity, as fiduciary of the estate of Paul G. Garrity, Sr., deceased, Paul G. Garrity, as fiduciary of the estate of Paul G. Garrity, Sr., deceased, Paul M. Sterczala, as fiduciary of the estate of Paul G. Garrity, Sr., deceased, Defendants: Daniel F. Brown, Heather L. Marello, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Andreozzi Bluestein LLP, Clarence, NY; Michael Menapace, Wiggin & Dana-Htfd, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hartford, CT; Randall P. Andreozzi, LEAD ATTORNEY, Andreozzi, Bluestein, Weber, Brown LLP - Clarence, Clarence, NY; Anthony M Bruce, Andreozzi Bluestein LLP, Clarence, NY; James O. Craven, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, CT.

For Dworkin, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C., Witness: Marie A. Casper, LEAD ATTORNEY, Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, P.C., Bridgeport, [*2] CT.

For Sean Garrity, Kevin Garrity, Witnesss: James N. Mastracchio, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Washington, DC; John A. Farnsworth, Withers Bergman, LLP, New Haven, CT.

JUDGES: Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Michael P. Shea.

OPINION

RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS

Following the pretrial conference, the parties submitted revised lists of proposed exhibits and objections. (See ECF Nos. 155 and 156.) I have set forth rulings on these objections below, beginning with a general discussion followed by rulings as to each proposed exhibit.

I. General Principles and Observations About the Parties' Objections to Exhibits

A. Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits

The Defendants object to virtually all of Plaintiff's proposed exhibits on four grounds: authenticity, hearsay, that they are "selective and not complete," and relevance.

1. Authenticity

"To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). "Rule 901 does not erect a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be cleared by circumstantial [*3] evidence." United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 37 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 901's requirements are "satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "Once Rule 901's requirements are satisfied, the evidence's persuasive force is left to the jury." Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38. (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, once the threshold for authenticity is met, "the other party . . . remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges go to the weight of the evidence--not to its admissibility." Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

Rule 901 provides a non-exhaustive list of ways to authenticate evidence. For example, a party may use a "comparison with an authenticated specimen by . . . the trier of fact" to establish authenticity. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(3). Under this provision, fact-finders may compare signatures among documents to determine authenticity. See, e.g., Stiles Mach., Inc. v. Lestorti, No. 3:05 CV 397 (JGM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51912, 2007 WL 2099218, at *7 (D. Conn. July 17, 2007) (noting that the "persuasive force of the signature above [defendant]'s name is a decision [*4] that lies with the trier of fact" but that "the trier of fact may authenticate the handwriting by comparing the specimens of his writing which have been authenticated").

"The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances," may also satisfy the authentication requirement. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). Under this provision, courts have made preliminary determinations of authenticity based on the appearance of records, including foreign records. See, e.g., McQueeney v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 779 F.2d 916, 928-29 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that the "contents of the documents tend[ed] to support their claim to authenticity" as plaintiff's "Sea Service Records," as they "appear[ed] to be copies of standard official forms," "each [was] signed and dated by the plaintiff," and each included the plaintiff's personal official identification number); United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 319 F.R.D. 459, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding that arbitration files obtained from unavailable Russian lawyers could be authenticated because they had distinctive characteristics similar to other records that could be authenticated, such as pages of nonpublic information regarding contracts and bank account numbers). "The specificity, regularity, and official appearance of . . . documents [*5] increase the likelihood of their being authentic." McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 929.

Finally, courts have held that the fact that the records were produced by a party in response to a discovery request, "while not dispositive of the issue of authentication, is surely probative." McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 929. See also Burgess v. Premier Corp., 727 F.2d 826, 835-36 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that "the district court could properly have found that all of the exhibits were adequately authenticated by the fact of being found in [defendant's] warehouse").

In this case, as noted below in the specific rulings, the documents whose authenticity defendants challenge include records bearing the signature and/or initials of Mr. Garrity, Sr., and/or his sons--and those signatures, which appear to be by the same person(s), are also contained in other records to which Defendants do not object. See, e.g., Exs. 25 (signed by Kevin Garrity, and to which Defendants do not object), 61 (will signed by Mr. Garrity and submitted to the Court at ECF No. 115-13), and 99 (promissory notes signed by Mr. Garrity and submitted to the Court at ECF No. 115-11). Other documents include the same bank account number and appear to be records of the same bank as to which Defendants have made judicial admissions in their answer; appear to be records [*6] of the same foundation, and bear the same dates, about which Defendants have made judicial admissions in their answer; and provide evidence of the same "shared signature authority" about which defendants have made judicial admissions in their answer. See ECF No. 9 ∂∂ 7, 8, and 21. Further, Plaintiff has represented that all of these documents were produced by Defendants after the documents were obtained from the foundation or "after Defendants' counsel travelled to Liechtenstein and obtained it directly from" the bank that served as the foundation's agent. See ECF No. 155 at 1-2. Defendants have not contested this representation.

2. Hearsay

Defendants have also made hearsay objections to several of the exhibits. The following general principles inform the Court's specific ruling on each of the hearsay objections. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement that "a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Many of the documents to which Defendants have lodged hearsay objections consist of statements that are offered not to prove their truth but to prove other things, such as whether Paul Garrity, Sr. had an interest in or authority over [*7] a foreign financial account or whether he acted willfully in failing to report that account. (Should either party request in writing a limiting instruction as to any such documents indicating that the jury may not consider the statements within the document for their truth but only for some other limited purpose, the Court will give such an instruction.) Further, other documents consist of statements that are directions or requests and thus are not hearsay. See, e.g., United States v. Kuthuru, 665 Fed. Appx. 34, 38 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2016) ("Questions and commands are ordinarily not hearsay because they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted . . . .").

3. "Selective and Not Complete"

Defendants have also objected to some of the exhibits on the ground that they "are selective and not complete." To the extent this is an evidentiary objection, it appears to invoke the "rule of completeness" set forth in Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states that "[i]f a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part--or any other writing or recorded statement--that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time."

The common-law doctrine of completeness, on which Rule 106 is based, likewise requires [*8] that a full document or set of documents be introduced: [W]hen one party has made use of a portion of a document, such that misunderstanding or distortion can be averted only through presentation of another portion, the material required for completeness is ipso facto relevant and therefore admissible. We have interpreted Rule 106 to require that a document be admitted when it is essential to explain an already admitted document, to place the admitted document in context, or to avoid misleading the trier of fact. Underlying Rule 106, then, is a principle of fairness requiring the introduction of an entire or related document if necessary for the fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion or document.

Phoenix Assocs. III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

As Plaintiff points out, however, Defendants fail to elaborate on what they mean by "selective" or "not complete" and, more pointedly, fail to identify what other documents or portions of documents "in fairness ought to be considered at the same time." Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had identified these failures in an earlier version of the lists of exhibits and objections filed on the docket, and have still declined to elaborate on [*9] this objection. Accordingly, because the Court cannot sustain an objection the grounds for which are not adequately specified, this objection is overruled in its entirety--and no specific ruling will be set forth in the table below--unless the document itself makes it apparent to the Court that it is incomplete. As explained in the table below, however, the Court has admitted certain of Defendants' proposed exhibits based on the rule of completeness.

4. Relevance

Defendants do not explain their relevance objections and some of them--for example, objections to tax filings by the Estate acknowledging that Mr. Garrity was the owner of the same foreign entity that is the subject of the Government's allegations--appear to be without an arguable basis in law or fact. In any event, and keeping in mind that "Rule 401 sets a very low standard for relevance," United States v. Shkreli, 15-CR-637 (KAM), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145215, 2017 WL 3623626, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court sets forth specific rulings as to Defendants' relevance objections below.

B. Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Exhibits

In the specific rulings below, the Court has sustained several of Plaintiff's objections for reasons explained more fully in its rulings on [*10] the motions in limine, familiarity with which is assumed. The Court has also taken into account that the Government is seeking to introduce documents concerning the Liechtenstein entity and account, as well as the distributions from that account, and has overruled some of the Plaintiff's objections on completeness grounds. Other rulings as to specific documents are set forth below.

II. The Court's Rulings on Specific Proposed Exhibits

The following rulings are informed by the principles set forth above and respond to the parties' updated lists of exhibits and objections entered on the docket as ECF Nos. 155 and 156.

Rulings on Objections to Proposed Exhibits
Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits
Exhibit Number	Ruling
2	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: Signature of Mr.
	Garrity,^1 produced by Defendants, Answer para. 8
	(Lion Rock became client of BIL AG in November
	1989, consistent with information on this
	document), Answer para. 21 (Mr. Garrity had an
	interest in and shared signatory authority over
	Lion Rock)^2; Hearsay -- not offered for truth,
	instructions
3	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: Signature and initials
	of Mr. Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer
	paras. 7 & 8 (Lion Rock established in November
	1989, consistent with [*11] date shown on document; upon
	Mr. Garrity's death, assets distributed to Kevin,
	Paul, Jr., and Sean Garrity), Answer para. 21;
	Hearsay -- not offered for truth (and, to the
	extent it is, constitutes admission by party's
	predecessor, as Mr. Garrity signed and initialed);
	ancient documents exception also applies, FRE
	803(16)
4	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: Initials of Mr. Garrity,
	produced by Defendants, Answer para. 7 (Lion Rock
	established in November 1989, consistent with date
	shown on document),^3 Answer para. 21; Hearsay --
	not offered for truth (and, to the extent it is,
	constitutes admission by party's predecessor, as
	Mr. Garrity initialed); ancient documents
	exception also applies, FRE 803(16)
6	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer para. 8
	(Lion Rock became client of BIL AG in November
	1989, consistent with the information on
	document)^4, Answer para. 21; Hearsay -- not offered
	for truth (and, to the extent it is, constitutes
	admission by party's predecessor, as Mr. Garrity
	signed); ancient documents exception also applies,
	FRE 803(16)
7	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras.7,
	8, and 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth;
	[*12] ancient documents exception also applies, FRE
	803(16)
8	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 7,
	8, and 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed
	by party's predecessor; ancient documents
	exception also applies, FRE 803(16)
11	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature & initials of
	Mr. Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras.
	7, 8, and 21, Exhibit #3; Hearsay -- not offered
	for truth; signed by party's predecessor; ancient
	documents exception also applies, FRE 803(16)
14	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature & initials of
	Mr. Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras.
	7, 8, and 21, Exhibit #11; Hearsay -- not offered
	for truth; signed by party's predecessor; ancient
	documents exception also applies, FRE 803(16)
17	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8
	and 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by
	party's predecessor
18	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21;
	Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by party's
	predecessor
19	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 7,
	8, and 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; [*13] signed
	by party's predecessor; ancient documents
	exception also applies, FRE 803(16)
20	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature & initials of
	Mr. Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras.
	7 & 8 (including reference in document to same
	account number admitted in answer); Hearsay -- not
	offered for truth; ancient documents exception
	also applies, FRE 803(16)
21	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8
	(including reference in document to same account
	number admitted in answer) and 21; Hearsay -- not
	offered for truth; ancient documents exception
	also applies, FRE 803(16)
22	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21;
	Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by party's
	predecessor; ancient documents exception also
	applies, FRE 803(16)
23	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signatures of Kevin and
	Sean Garrity; produced by Defendants, Answer para.
	8 (including reference in document to same account
	number admitted in answer); Hearsay -- not offered
	for truth; ancient documents exception also
	applies, FRE 803(16)
24	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signatures of Kevin and
	Sean Garrity; produced by Defendants, Answer para.
	8 (reference to BIL), [*14] ex. 23; Hearsay -- not
	offered for truth; ancient documents exception
	also applies, FRE 803(16)
26	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8 &
	21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by
	party's predecessor
27	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8 &
	21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by
	party's predecessor
28	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8 &
	21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by
	party's predecessor; ancient document rule also
	applies, FRE 803(16)
29	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature and initials
	of Mr. Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer
	para. 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed
	by party's predecessor; ancient document rule also
	applies, FRE 803(16)
31	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Exhibits 27-29 (invoices correspond to trust
	agreement and letters of instruction); Hearsay --
	not offered for truth; signed by party's
	predecessor; ancient document rule also applies,
	FRE 803(16) (except as to last page of exhibit)
32	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 8 (including account number); [*15] Hearsay
	-- not offered for truth; ancient document rule
	also applies, FRE 803(16)
34	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signature of Mr.
	Garrity, produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21;
	Hearsay -- signed by party's predecessor (and first
	sentence is not offered for truth)
35	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 21, Exhibit 34; Hearsay -- statements
	by agents of Mr. Garrity (party's predecessor)
	within the scope of the agency (considering, for
	example, Exhibits 2, 8, and 34), FRE 801(d)(2)(D)
36	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signed by Mr. Garrity,
	produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8 (Account
	No.) & 21, Exhibits 34 & 35; Hearsay -- signed by
	party's predecessor
37	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signed by Mr. Garrity &
	sons, produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21;
	Hearsay -- not offered for truth; signed by party's
	predecessor
38	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signed by Mr. Garrity,
	produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21; Hearsay --
	not offered for truth, signed by party's
	predecessor, statements by agents of Mr. Garrity
	(party's predecessor) within the scope of the
	agency
39	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signed by Mr. Garrity,
	produced by Defendants, Answer para. 21; Hearsay --
	not offered for truth, signed by party's [*16]
	predecessor
40	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para 8 (Account No.); Hearsay -- not offered
	for truth, statements by agents of Mr. Garrity
	(party's predecessor) within the scope of the
	agency (considering, for example, Exhibits 2, 8,
	and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D)
41	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: signed by Mr. Garrity,
	produced by Defendants, Answer paras. 8 (account
	no.) and 21; Hearsay -- not offered for truth,
	signed by party's predecessor, statements by
	agents of Mr. Garrity (party's predecessor) within
	the scope of the agency (considering, for example,
	Exhibits 2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D); but, to
	the extent that the attached "Statement of Assets"
	document is being offered, the Court SUSTAINS the
	hearsay objection as to the narratives set forth
	in "general information" and the historical
	narrative under "Total Securities", inasmuch as it
	is not clear that reporting that historical
	information was within the scope of the agency.
	Plaintiff may offer a redacted version of this
	document.
42	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para 21; Hearsay -- statements that may be
	offered for truth are by party's predecessor;
	statements under "declaration of acceptances" are
	not offered [*17] for truth and are made by agents of
	Mr. Garrity (party's predecessor) within the scope
	of the agency (considering, for example, Exhibits
	2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D)
45	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer paras. 7 (reference to year in which Lion
	Rock established) and 8 (account number, bank),
	ex. 41; Hearsay -- not offered for truth,
	statements by agents of Mr. Garrity (party's
	predecessor) within the scope of the agency
	(considering, for example, Exhibits 2, 8, and 14),
	FRE 801(d)(2)(D); to the extent that the attached
	"Statement of Assets" document is being offered,
	the Court SUSTAINS the hearsay objection as to the
	narratives set forth in "general information" and
	the historical narrative under "Total Securities",
	inasmuch as it is not clear that reporting that
	historical information was within the scope of the
	agency and that information may be considered for
	truth. Plaintiff may offer a redacted version of
	this document.
46	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer paras. 7 (reference to year in which Lion
	Rock established) and 8 (account number, bank);
	Hearsay -- statements by agents of Mr. Garrity
	(party's predecessor) within the scope of the
	agency (considering, for [*18] example, Exhibits 2, 8,
	and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D); to the extent that the
	attached "Statement of Assets" document is being
	offered, the Court SUSTAINS the hearsay objection
	as to the narratives set forth in "general
	information" and the historical narrative under
	"Total Securities", inasmuch as it is not clear
	that reporting that historical information was
	within the scope of the agency and that
	information may be considered for truth. Plaintiff
	may offer a redacted version of this document.
47	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answers paras. 7 (reference to year in which Lion
	Rock established) and 8 (account number, bank);
	Hearsay -- statements by agents of Mr. Garrity
	(party's predecessor) within the scope of the
	agency (considering, for example, Exhibits 2, 8,
	and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D); to the extent that the
	attached "Statement of Assets" document is being
	offered, the Court SUSTAINS the hearsay objection
	as to the narratives set forth in "general
	information" and the historical narrative under
	"Total Securities", inasmuch as it is not clear
	that reporting that historical information was
	within the scope of the agency and that
	information may be considered for truth. Plaintiff
	may offer a [*19] redacted version of this document.
48	OVERRULED -- Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answers paras. 7 (reference to year in which Lion
	Rock established) and 8 (account number, bank);
	Hearsay -- statements by agents of party within the
	scope of the agency (considering, for example,
	Exhibits 2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D); to the
	extent that the attached "Statement of Assets"
	document is being offered, the Court SUSTAINS the
	hearsay objection as to the narratives set forth
	in "general information" and the historical
	narrative under "Total Securities", inasmuch as it
	is not clear that reporting that historical
	information was within the scope of the agency and
	that information may be considered for truth.
	Plaintiff may offer a redacted version of this
	document.
50	OVERRULED - Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 8 (account number, bank), Ex. 14
	(beneficial owners); Hearsay -- not offered for
	truth, statements by agents of party within the
51	scope of the agency (considering, for example,
	Exhibits 2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D).
	OVERRULED - Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 8
	(bank, account no.), Ex. 14 (beneficial owners);
	Hearsay -- not offered for truth, statements by
	agents of party [*20] within the scope of the agency
	(considering, for example, Exhibits 2, 8, and 14),
	FRE 801(d)(2)(D).
52	OVERRULED - Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 8 (bank, liquidation after death of
	Paul Garrity and distribution to sons), Ex. 14
	(beneficial owners); Hearsay -- not offered for
	truth (because defendants already judicially
	admitted that the funds were liquidated and
	distributed to the sons after Mr. Garrity's
	death), statements by agents of party within the
	scope of the agency (considering, for example,
	Exhibits 2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D).
53	OVERRULED - Authenticity: produced by Defendants,
	Answer para. 8 (bank, account number, liquidation
	after death of Paul Garrity and distribution to
	sons), Ex. 14 (beneficial owners); Hearsay -- not
	offered for truth (because defendants already
	judicially admitted that the funds were liquidated
	and distributed to the sons after Mr. Garrity's
	death), statements by agents of party within the
	scope of the agency (considering, for example,
	Exhibits 2, 8, and 14), FRE 801(d)(2)(D).
54	OVERRULED -- same as ruling as to Exhibit 53
56	OVERRULED -- Relevance: Goes to Mr. Garrity's
	mental capacity to dispose of his property in the
	period leading up to his death; Hearsay: [*21] not
	offered for truth, signed by party's predecessor
57	OVERRULED -- Relevance: Goes to Mr. Garrity's
	mental capacity to dispose of his property in the
	period leading up to his death
63	The Court will reserve ruling on this document
	until the time of trial as its relevance depends
	on some foundational evidence that Mr. Garrity had
	some role in reviewing, preparing, signing or
	authorizing the filing of this document.
64	The Court will reserve ruling on this document
	until the time of trial as its relevance depends
	on some foundational evidence that Mr. Garrity had
	some role in reviewing, preparing, signing,
	authorizing or otherwise participating in the
	filing of FBAR reports on behalf of Garrity
	Industries in the years in question or in general.
65	OVERRULED -- Relevance: goes to Mr. Garrity's
	knowledge of FBAR requirement for foreign
	accounts.
66	OVERRULED -- Relevance: goes to willfulness for the
	reasons described in the Government's response to
	Defendants' objection (ECF No. 155 at 25).
67	OVERRULED -- Relevance: Shows the return in Exhibit
	66 was delivered to Mr. Garrity and is thus
	relevant for the same reasons as Exhibit 66.
70	OVERRULED -- This document is obviously relevant,
	as it shows Mr. Garrity e-filed his 2005 [*22] tax
	return, the very tax year at issue in this case.
74	OVERRULED -- Relevance: The document is relevant
	for the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's response
	to the Defendants' objection. See ECF No. 155 at
	26.
75	OVERRULED -- Relevance: Defendants have asserted
	that they intend to contest the issue whether Paul
	Garrity had a reportable interest or authority in
	a foreign financial account in 2005. This document
	is an admission by his estate -- a party in this
	action -- that he and/or his estate did have such
	an interest or authority in 2008. It is therefore
	relevant, especially because it appears to
	identify the same account that is the subject of
	the Plaintiff's allegations concerning 2005.
78	OVERRULED - Relevance: The document is relevant
	for the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's response
	to the Defendants' objection, including because
	Defendants are contesting that Mr. Garrity had an
	interest in or authority over a foreign financial
	account. See ECF No. 155 at 27.
79	OVERRULED - Relevance: The document is relevant
	for the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's response
	to the Defendants' objection, including because
	Defendants are contesting that Mr. Garrity had an
	interest in or authority over a foreign financial
	account. [*23] See ECF No. 155 at 27-30.
80-94	OVERRULED -- see ruling as to #79
95	OVERRULED - Relevance: The document goes to Mr.
	Garrity's mental capacity and ability to dispose
	of his property and manage his affairs at the
	relevant time and thus, ultimately, willfulness.
101-02	OVERRULED -- Relevance: As long as a foundation is
	laid that Mr. Sterczala in fact prepared these
	documents, they are relevant to Mr. Garrity's
	mental capacity and ability to dispose of his
	property and manage his affairs at the relevant
	time and thus, ultimately, willfulness.
103	OVERRULED -- Relevance: The document is relevant
	for the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's response
	to Defendants' objection. ECF No. 155 at 31.
104	OVERRULED -- Relevance: The document is relevant to
	Mr. Garrity's mental capacity and ability to
	dispose of his property and manage his affairs at
	the relevant time and thus, ultimately,
	willfulness.
Defendants' Proposed Exhibits
Exhibit Number	Ruling
502	SUSTAINED in part - Relevance and 403: An expert
	may rely on information not itself admissible in
	evidence if other experts in the field would rely
	on the same type of information. That is, Dr.
	Fenstermaker may rely on and refer to the records
	without the entire document -- which is [*24] extremely
	large and includes records relating to, among
	other things, Mr. Garrity's knee -- coming in to
	evidence. If there are relevant portions of the
	document Defendants wish to introduce into
	evidence that pertain to the issues in the case --
	for example, whether Mr. Garrity's health
	condition shows that he did not act willfully --
	Defendants may designate those portions, no later
	than 24 hours before they are introduced into
	evidence, and introduce only those portions
	designated as being Exhibit 502A.
507	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay: The document is written by
	Mr. Garrity and being offered by his estate and
	describes his background, his business, his sons'
	roles in the business, and sources of discord
	between him and his son Kevin concerning the
	business. Relevance: Some of this background may
	be relevant (for example, his level of business
	sophistication may have some relevance to his
	understanding of tax issues and his role as
	chairman of Garrity industries may be have some
	relevance to understanding invoices being offered
	by the Government) -- but other parts, such as his
	military background and the details to changes to
	the family's insurance policies, are not relevant.
	That said, it is possible that the Court [*25] will have
	to revisit some or all of this ruling should it
	conclude that Kevin must testify and that the jury
	may draw an adverse inference from any invocation
	by him of the Fifth Amendment.
508	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay -- parts of the document,
	including that Mr. Garrity refused to speak with
	his son Kevin about the family business, appear to
	be offered for the truth of the statements made,
	although parts do not appear to be offered for
	truth. Relevance: A dispute between Mr. Garrity
	and his son Kevin about who would have the title
	and responsibilities of CEO of Garrity Industries
	is not relevant to the issues in this case and, to
	the extent it is, its minimal probative value is
	substantially outweighed by the danger of
	misleading the jury. As noted with respect to
	#507, however, it is possible the Court will
	revisit this ruling if it concludes that Kevin
	must testify and if he invokes the Fifth
	Amendment.
509	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay: An expert report is not
	admissible as it is hearsay and should in any
	event not be necessary because the expert will
	testify.
518	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403: The form indicates that
	it was revised in January 2012, years after Mr.
	Garrity died. The arguments raised by Defendants
	in ECF No. 156 [*26] are similar to those raised in
	support of the testimony of Howard Epstein, and
	are rejected for reasons similar to those set
	forth in the Court's ruling excluding Mr.
	Epstein's testimony, i.e., wrong state-of-mind
	standard, no evidence connecting published IRS
	guidance (or lack thereof or changes thereto) to
	Mr. Garrity, legal conclusions, confusing to the
	jury, etc.
519	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay/Court's ruling on Epstein
	testimony
520	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony; this is legal material; also,
	this document does not appear to address the
	reporting requirement at issue in this case
527	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony; this is legal material
529	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony
531	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony
532	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony
533	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony
534	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony; also, this is just a web cover
	page and does not say anything substantive about
	FBAR reporting requirements
536	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403/Court's ruling on
	Epstein testimony (and, especially, no evidence [*27]
	connecting the document to Mr. Garrity)
541	OVERRULED -- Unless the Plaintiff can show that the
	document was wrongly withheld in response to a
	discovery request -- which it has not done to date
	-- the fact that it was not previously produced is
	not a basis to exclude it. Relevance: The document
	appears to have some relevance to Mr. Garrity's
	role at Garrity Industries, his sophistication
	about business and tax matters, and, to the extent
	this becomes relevant at trial (if, for example,
	Kevin and Sean testify and take the Fifth and the
	Court gives an adverse inference instruction), the
	relationships with family members
543	OVERRULED - Unless the Plaintiff can show that the
	document was wrongly withheld in response to a
	discovery request -- which it has not done to date
	-- the fact that it was not previously produced is
	not a basis to exclude it. The document is
	relevant because it provides some evidence about
	Mr. Garrity's mental capacities in 2005.
544	SUSTAINED -- Relevance: Defendants fail to explain
	how the document relates to this case. With regard
	to the Eighth Amendment issue, which the parties
	agree the Court will decide, the Court assumes
	that the Plaintiff will not object to the Court's
	taking judicial notice [*28] of this document, as well
	as filings in the related trust case, for purposes
	of deciding the Eighth Amendment issue. Although
	the Defendants suggest in ECF No. 156 that this
	document also somehow relates to Lion Rock and
	distributions from Lion Rock, the document makes
	no mention of Lion Rock or any such distributions
	and thus Defendants have thus failed to sustain
	their burden of showing why the document is
	relevant. To the extent the document has some
	relevance, its minimal probative value is
	outweighed by the dangers of confusing the issues
	and misleading the jury, as the dollar figures it
	sets forth do not appear to relate to the FBAR
	penalties.
549	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay: The former testimony
	exception for unavailable declarants does not
	appear to apply because, among other reasons, the
	statements do not appear to have been "testimony,"
	i.e., there is no indication on the document that
	Mr. Garrity was under oath and the document itself
	and defendants' exhibit list refer to the
	discussion as an "interview."
550	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay: The former testimony
	exception for unavailable declarants does not
	appear to apply because, among other reasons, the
	statements do not appear to have been "testimony,"
	i.e., there [*29] is no indication on the document that
	Mr. Garrity was under oath and the document itself
	and defendants' exhibit list refer to the
	discussion as an "interview."
551	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403: This material is
	excluded for reasons similar to those for which
	the Court granted the Government's motion in
	limine concerning the pre-suit IRS examination.
	This is a de novo proceeding at which the
	Government will have to prove that Mr. Garrity
	willfully failed to disclose a foreign financial
	account. The notes of the Revenue Agent during the
	IRS's pre-suit investigation (or assessment
	examination) are simply not relevant and, to the
	extent they have some minimal probative value,
	pose a substantial danger of confusing the issues
	and misleading the jury. The document also
	reflects statements by others and thus includes
	inadmissible hearsay.
563	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403 -- see ruling as to
	Exhibit 551 -- also, this document speaks mainly to
	the foreign trust issues and does not show, as
	defendants suggest, that the revenue agent has
	devised a "false inference"
564	SUSTAINED -- see ruling on Exhibit 563
572	SUSTAINED -- 403 - The document is in German.
	Nonetheless, if the defendants can procure a
	certified translation and the document [*30] is
	otherwise relevant and admissible, the Court will
	admit it.
575	OVERRULED -- In the interests of completeness (and
	because Plaintiff has offered so many documents
	from the Liechtenstein bank), the Court will admit
	this document with a limiting instruction
	(assuming Plaintiff requests one) that the
	statements set forth in the document may not be
	considered for their truth.
576	OVERRULED -- see ruling on Exhibit 575
580	SUSTAINED -- 403 -- The document is in German.
	Defendants point out that there are a few English
	words on the document, but the meaning of those
	words is difficult to decipher (and thus
	confusing) absent an understanding of German.
584	OVERRULED -- Although part of the document is in
	German, enough of it is in English that it may
	have some probative value. The Court will not
	admit Defendants' proposed translation of the
	German text unless it is certified.
585	SUSTAINED -- Hearsay/403: The document contains
	out-of-court statements that are plainly offered
	for their truth. Worse, it does not even identify
	the speaker of the critical statement (on the
	version presented to the Court, the name of the
	recipient of the first email and sender of the
	second is redacted or otherwise not shown),
	depriving the factfinder [*31] of any ability at all to
	assess the credibility of the statement.
590	SUSTAINED -- see ruling as to Exhibit 551
596	OVERRULED in part/SUSTAINED in part -- Relevance:
	The distribution to the sons of Mr. Garrity is
	described in the complaint and therefore has some
	relevance (for example, in showing that the
	distribution occurred as Mr. Garrity contemplated
	in the original Lion Rock documents, which
	describe the three sons as "second beneficiaries"
	upon the death of Mr. Garrity). (See Compl. Para.
	8). Hearsay: As for the hearsay objection, many of
	the statements consist of instructions and
	requests, which are not hearsay because they are
	not offered for truth. Nonetheless, some of the
	statements in Kevin Garrity's 1/26/09 email (e.g.,
	"As you know, you drafted .") are historical and
	appear to be offered for truth, and the objection
	is sustained as to those statements and other
	similar historical statements in the document.
	Defendants may redact the document and offer it
	accordingly.
600	SUSTAINED -- Relevance/403 -- The photo of Mr.
	Garrity and his wife is undated and includes no
	writing or other information to show when it was
	taken, where it was taken, or the circumstances.
	The Defendants in their response to the
	Plaintiff's [*32] objection (ECF No. 156) have not
	suggested that, for example, their medical expert
	relied on the photo to formulate his opinions or
	that the photo is otherwise relevant to any issue
	the jury will be deciding. In short, the Court is
	unaware of any fact that is of consequence in
	determining the action and that would be made more
	or less probable with the photo. For example,
	there does not appear to be any question or
	dispute in the case about Mr. Garrity's identity
	or his appearance. Finally, even if it were dated,
	the photo by itself would not shed light on Mr.
	Garrity's mental competence when it was taken -- at
	least in the absence of expert testimony
	explaining why.
601	SUSTAINED -- see ruling on Exhibit #600.
602	SUSTAINED -- A matter admitted in a Request to
	Admit is deemed "conclusively established," Fed.
	R. Civ. P. 36(b), and thus it is not necessary or
	helpful to present the admissions themselves,
	which are drafted by lawyers during the pendency
	of a lawsuit and would thus not otherwise be
	admissible evidence. To the extent the Defendants
	identify to the Court before trial the portions of
	this document they consider relevant, the Court
	will consider instructing the jury that any
	pertinent admissions in such [*33] portions are to be
	treated as conclusively established.

1 "Mr. Garrity" in these rulings refers to Paul Garrity, Sr.

2 The Court will refer to this judicial admission by the defendants, together with the other admissions in paragraph 21 of the Answer, as "Answer para. 21" in the rulings below. The fact that the answer admits only that Mr. Garrity had an interest in and shared signature authority over Lion Rock in 2005 affects the weight rather than the admissibility of this evidence.

3 The Court will refer to this judicial admission by the defendants as "Answer para. 7" in the rulings below.

4 The Court will refer to this judicial admission by the defendants, together with the other admissions in paragraph 8 of the Answer, as "Answer para. 8" in the rulings below.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

Dated: Hartford, Connecticut

June 4, 2018