Understanding the Motion to Compel Depositions in Connecticut

What Is the Purpose of a Motion to Compel Depositions?

“The rules of discovery are designed to make trial less a game of blindman’s buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent.” (Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital (1984) 2 Conn. App. 103, 106 [internal quotation marks omitted].)

Courts in Connecticut have held that dilatory tactics can amount to abuse of the discovery process and expose a party to sanctions, including attorney’s fees. (See Usowski v. Jacobson (2003) 267 Conn. 73, 81.) Courts have also held that dismissal can be an appropriate sanction in cases where dilatory tactics are employed. (See DuBois v. William W. Backus Hospital (2005) 92 Conn. App. 743, 752.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Standard for Disclosure

Section 13-14 provides in relevant part:

(a) If any party has failed to appear and testify at a deposition duly noticed pursuant to this chapter, or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order made pursuant to Sections 13-6 through 13-11, the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order proportional to the noncompliance as the ends of justice require.

If a party has failed to comply with the provision of subsection (a), [under subsection (b)]the court may enter such orders including:

The entry of a nonsuit or default against the party failing to comply;
The award to the discovering party of the costs of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee;
The entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought or other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters in evidence;
An order of dismissal, nonsuit or default.

(Practice Book §13-14.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the court.” (Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy (1983) 190 Conn. 48, 57.)

The Court’s Decision

“In Null v. Jacobs (165 Conn. App. 339, 341, 139 A.3d 709 [2016]) after the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear for a court-ordered deposition, the trial court rendered a judgment of nonsuit as a sanction for the violation of the court's discovery order. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the sanction was not proportional to the violation. (Id.) The trial court in Null based its decision to grant the defendant's motion for a judgment of nonsuit on the fact that the failure of the plaintiff's attorney to appear for the deposition ‘was not an isolated event’; [id., at 348] but, rather, ‘was part and parcel of a pattern of noncompliance spanning several years.’ (Id.) The trial court also found that the noncompliance was caused by a ‘lack of due diligence and deliberate and unwarranted disregard for the court's authority.’ (Id., at 348–49.) Under those circumstances, [the reviewing] court determined that the trial court ‘did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the sanction of nonsuit was proportional to the plaintiff's violation,’ which ‘was part of ongoing discovery misconduct’ and demonstrated ‘[a] continuing pattern of violations [that warranted] dismissal of the action.’” (Gutierrez v. Mosor (2021) 206 Conn. App. 818, 828-29 citing and quoting id., at 349, 139 A.3d 709.)

“The appellate courts of [Connecticut] consistently have upheld nonsuits, defaults or other sanctions imposed for discovery violations where the noncomplying party has exhibited a pattern of violations or discovery abuse demonstrating a disregard for the court's authority.” (Gutierrez v. Mosor (2021) 206 Conn. App. 818, 829 citing Lafferty v. Jones (2020) 336 Conn. at 375, 379-80.)

Current as of May 15, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.

Documents for Motion to Compel Depositions in Connecticut

Sort By

DALTON, KEVIN v. DALTON MCELIGOTT, PATRICIA Et Al document preview

COMPLAINT

48 pages

RETURN DATE: JULY 2, 2024 : SUPERIOR COURT : J.D. OF HARTFORD IN RE ESTATE OF ELAINE DALTON : AT HARTFORD APPEAL FROM PROBATE : MAY 20, 2024 COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT – APPEAL FROM PROBATE I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HI…