ORDER

ANALISA TORRES, District Judge.

By letter dated February 13, 2020, Plaintiff sought permission to "move to preclude [Defendants] from arguing or suggesting to the jury that there is anything improper or inappropriate in (1) the fact that [Plaintiff] has worked as a contract paralegal for [his counsel] while representing him at trial or in this case, or (2) more generally, the relationship between [P]laintiff and [his counsel] and [his] firm." Pl. Letter at 1, ECF No. 423. On February 24, 2020, Defendants filed a letter in opposition. ECF No. 426. Having reviewed the parties' letters, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.

Pretrial submissions, including motions in limine, were due on January 17, 2020. ECF No. 357. "That the motion in limine is untimely is reason alone to deny it." Kokoska v. Carroll, No. 12 Civ. 1111, 2015 WL 1004303, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2015); see Chepilko v. City of New York, 562 F. App'x 36, 37 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider [plaintiff's] untimely opposition to the defendants' motion in limine."). In any event, there is no need for a pretrial ruling on this issue. Plaintiff expresses concern that evidence and argument about his role as a contract paralegal for his trial counsel may veer into inappropriate attacks on counsel. Pl. Letter at 2. The Court is entirely capable of policing unfairly prejudicial statements by counsel at trial.

SO ORDERED.