Understanding the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Connecticut

What Is the Purpose of a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories?

Practice Book 231 provides: “If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly ... or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order ... the court may, on motion, make such order as the ends of justice require. Such orders may include the following: ... (d) The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters....” (Guzze v. New Britain General Hospital (1988) 16 Conn. App. 480, 482 n.4 citing Practice Book Sec. 231.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“Practice Book § 25–32A, which took effect on August 15, 2011, states: “If a party fails to comply with a discovery request or a discovery order in any manner set forth in Section 13–14(a), the party who requested such discovery or in whose favor the discovery order was made may move to compel compliance with the request or order.” (Valentine v. Valentin (2016) 164 Conn. App. 354, 379 n.16 citing Practice Book § 25–32A.)

Memorandum Requirement

Practice Book § 25–32A further states:

“The moving party shall specify in a memorandum in support of his or her motion the discovery sought and the remedy sought. The party to whom the discovery request or order was directed shall, in a memorandum, specify why the discovery has not been provided or why such party has not complied with the discovery order.” (Valentine v. Valentin (2016) 164 Conn. App. 354, 379 n.16 citing Practice Book § 25–32A.)

Response from Charged Party

“If the party to whom the discovery request or order was directed claims that the discovery has been provided or order has been complied with, he or she shall detail with specificity what discovery was provided and how compliance with the discovery order was made.” (Id.)

Response of the Court

Practice Book § 25–32B provides: “The judicial authority may appoint a discovery special master to assist in the resolution of discovery disputes. When such an appointment is made, the judicial authority shall specify the duties, authority and compensation of the discovery special master and how that compensation shall be allocated between the parties.” (Valentine v. Valentine (2016) 164 Conn. App. 354, 379 n.16.)

Interrogatories and Family Law Proceedings

Practice Book § 13–14, applicable to family matters pursuant to Practice Book § 25–31, provides in relevant part: “(a) If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly ... or has failed to respond to requests for production ... the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order as the ends of justice require....” (Valentine, supra, 164 Conn. App. at 381 n.20.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

It is well settled that “[t]he 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.)

“A court's discovery related orders are ‘subject to reversal only if such an order constitutes an abuse of that discretion.... [I]t is only in rare instances that the trial court's decision will be disturbed.’” (Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg. Inc. (2003) 265 Conn. 1, 7; Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bertrand (2013) 140 Conn. App. 646 [internal citations omitted].)

The Court’s Decision

“An order issued upon a motion for discovery is ordinarily not appealable because it does not constitute a final judgment, at least in civil actions.” (Ingels v. Saldana (2007) 103 Conn. App. 724, 731-32 citing Melia v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1987) 202 Conn. 252, 255; [Internal quotation marks omitted.])

“The trial court has a responsibility to avoid unnecessary interruptions, to maintain the orderly procedure of the court docket, and to prevent any interference with the fair administration of justice.... In addition, matters involving judicial economy, docket management [and control of] courtroom proceedings ... are particularly within the province of a trial court.” (Lake Road Trust Ltd. v. ABB Powertech (Pty) Ltd. (2012) 136 Conn. App. 671, 682 citing West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp. (2009) 117 Conn.App. 465, 469 [internal quotation marks omitted.])

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 Further Responses to Interrogatories in Connecticut

Sort By

DOONEY, PETER v. THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION Et Al document preview

MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE – PB SEC 13-14 (INTERR/PROD – 13-6/13-9) to…

136 pages

DOCKET NO. X08-FST-CV23-6063159-S SUPERIOR COURT PETER DOONEY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET Plaintiff, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION, ETAL. Defendants. APRIL 23, 2024 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE …

Case Name DOONEY, PETER v. THE CONYERS FARM CORPORATION Et Al