2008 Ct. Sup. 3736, 45 CLR 150
No. X05 CV 04 4009299 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Complex Litigation Docket at Stamford
March 4, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TAGGART D. ADAMS, JUDGE.
The plaintiffs have moved in limine to exclude certain communications to and from members of a “Beth Din,” which is a Jewish religious tribunal consisting of three rabbis, that acted as an arbitration panel to resolve other disputes between some of the parties to this action and to exclude the testimony of one of the members of the Beth Din. The parties have briefed the issues and oral argument took place on February 25, 2008.
The court has reviewed the authorities cited by the parties. The general rule regarding taking evidence from arbitrators prohibits probing into an arbitrator’s decision making processes. “An arbitrator should be free to decide the dispute before him without fear that he will have to explain the basis for his decision, and how he arrived at it, at some later date.” Hoeft v. MVL Group, Inc., 343 F.3d 57, 68 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Bisnovich v. British American Assurance Co., 100 Conn. 240, 247 (1924). There are issues, however, about which an arbitrator may give evidence and one of them is the issue of what was submitted to the arbitrator for decision. Abel v. Fitch, 20 Conn. 90, 96-97 (1849); Eder Bros, Inc. v. International Brotherhood, 36 Conn.Sup. 223, 224 (1980).
With this background in mind the court makes the following rulings. Since there has not been a formal proffer of Rabbi Bogomilsky’s testimony the court will only rule at this time that he may testify as to what issues the Beth Din was called upon to decide and may not testify as to what processes he or other members of the Beth Din used to arrive at a decision, nor may he explain the decision. As to the proferrered exhibits the following exhibits, or parts thereof, are excluded for the reasons set forth in plaintiffs’ motion in limine: Exhibit H, Exhibit J (except for paragraph numbered 6), Exhibit K (except for second full paragraph), Exhibit L (except for second full paragraph) and Exhibit N. CT Page 3737
As to those exhibits or parts thereof not excluded, other objections to admissibility such as relevance may be made at trial.
CT Page 3738