Preview
DOCKET NO. NNH-CV21-6115802-S : SUPERIOR COURT
HEATHER RYAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
VS. : AT NEW HAVEN
LYNDA M. BARONE, Et. Al. : APRIL 19, 2022
OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NONSUIT
Plaintiff, through counsel, hereby objects to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment of Nonsuit
dated April 7, 2022, which was based on a claimed refusal to cooperate in discovery and provide
materials required by court order. Plaintiff contends that she has rectified any deficiencies claimed
by Defendants in their motion, as well as any additional claimed deficiencies that counsel for the
Defendants has subsequently raised after review of additional discovery. The Defendants claim
nonsuit should enter “as a result of her failure to provide complete responses to the Defendants’
discovery requests, and additionally for the reason that she failed to provide verified responses by
the Court ordered deadline of April 5, 2022.”
As to the VERIFIED answers needing a signature, Plaintiff has had a difficult time leaving
the house due to concerns over her condition in the covid-19 pandemic and had been consulting
with counsel over the phone as much as possible so as to minimize outside exposure. Still, Plaintiff
rectified this and filed compliance (See #158.00 Notice of Supp. Compliance - Signature Page
to Interrogatories & Supp. Responses to Nos. 69, 70, 71 & 87 dated 04/18/2022). Defendants’
claim the filed answers were “uncertified; meaning that the defendant cannot rely on the responses
because the plaintiff has made no affirmation as to the integrity of the responses” is now MOOT.
Further, responses have been filed for the interrogatories which Defendants claim were
defective. The specific questions defendants complain about are below, including the original
answer and the amended answer:
Question 69. “Please define "living out of boxes" as was described in your rental application
to live at the subject property.
ORIGINAL ANSWER: Plaintiff had thought that she had secured a home to move into from
the last property she inhabited, and she had put been preparing to move out, but the deal had
fallen through. So, she had began to pack as though moving out already, but did not have a
location secured.
1
FURTHER ANSWER: Plaintiff had “lived out of boxes” while at her last residence, because
she had packed yet did not move, so rather than unpack, she continued by removing and
replacing items from her already packed boxes.
Question 70. Please state the duration of the period you were "living out of boxes."
ORIGINAL ANSWER: Unknown
FURTHER ANSWER: Plaintiff “lived in boxes” for about one month.
Question 71. During the period described in your response to interrogatory 72, where were
your boxes and/or belongings stored?
ORIGINAL ANSWER: Assuming this question is actually referring to interrogatory 70,
plaintiff does not know. She moved her belongings from location to location when she
moved.
FURTHER ANSWER: The question incorrectly refers to Interrogatory 72 and is nonsensical.
However, Plaintiff packed in boxes to move from her old home to a new one; the new one
fell through, the boxes stayed in her old home until she moved the boxes into the Defendants’
home.
As the court can see, this discovery is immaterial, irrelevant, and provides no
information; nor does it pertain to any issue of the lawsuit. The Defendants’ demand for
judgment based on counsel’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to provide an adequate answer is
disingenuous.
With regard to interrogatory #87, the Plaintiff has instructed the undersigned to delete
any claim for lost income or aggravation of her PTSD, which is the basis of her Social Security
Disability. Upon information and belief, the events that led to her PTSD are extremely traumatic
and Plaintiff has decided not to seek any compensation for the aggravation or exacerbation as it
will only harm her further.
The Court will note the Plaintiff has filed # 157.00 REQUEST TO AMEND
COMPLAINT/AMENDMENT on April 13, 2022, to delete any claim for lost income and
exacerbation of a prior mental illness (PTSD) that is so severe it warranted awarding Social
Security Disability.
Question 87. Please state whether you been diagnosed with any disability, prior to the
commencement of your tenancy on the subject property. If your responses in the affirmative,
please provide the name of any provider who you consulted with relative to that condition,
the dates of any treatment, the specific diagnosis, the prognosis or duration of said disability,
whether you received any benefits or compensation as a result of said disability
determination and provide any records and reports relative thereto.
2
ORIGINAL ANSWER: Yes.
Provider: Unknown – Psychiatrist in Greenwich
Dates of Treatment: 2014
Specific Diagnosis: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Prognosis/ Duration: Lifetime
Benefits: Social Security Disability
Records unavailable
FURTHER ANSWER: George L. Hogben, MD.
Production 25. Any and all medical expenses you have incurred for hospitalization,
medical care, x-rays, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic expenses, medication, or any
other medical or psychological treatment expenses for any injury you are alleging in
your Complaint. Defendant requests a detailed invoice reflecting payment by any
sources towards such expenses.
ORIGINAL ANSWER: Schedule A provided, to be updated upon receipt of additional
records.
FURTHER ANSWER: We have provided all billing records in our possession, and have
provided authorizations to obtain any additional medical records and billing.
Production 39. Produce evidence of any and all rental payment tendered by you or
anyone on your behalf relative to your subject premises.
ORIGINAL ANSWER: To be provided.
FURTHER ANSWER: Records for payment have been requested and will be provided
upon receipt.
The Plaintiff has complied in all material respects with the Defendants’ Interrogatories,
which were noticed as “Service of standard discovery to plaintiff” on August 11, 2021. In fact,
Defendants did not file “standard discovery.” Per their later Motion for Compliance dated
February 1, 2022, Defendants specifically filed “nonstandard interrogatories and requests for
production.”
Plaintiff answered standard discovery requests, only to be told that Defendants emailed
Plaintiff nonstandard discovery requests, which were caught in our spam filter and were not
received. So, Plaintiff scrambled to rectify this error. The Practice Book clearly REQUIRES the
Defendants to seek permission to file this type of interrogatories.
In the amendments on June 24, 2016, the judges of the Superior Court adopted revisions
to the Practice Book. “The revisions will be officially released on July 12, 2016, by being
published in the Connecticut Law Journal and will become effective on January 1, 2017.”
3
P.B. 13-6 was amended to read: (b) Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be
inquired into under Sections 13-2 through 13-5 and the answers may be used at trial to
the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. In all personal injury actions alleging
liability based on the operation or ownership of a motor vehicle or alleging liability
based on the ownership, maintenance or control of real property, the interrogatories
shall be limited to those set forth in Forms 201, 202, 203, 208 and/or 210 of the
rules of practice, unless upon motion, the judicial authority determines that such
interrogatories are inappropriate or inadequate in the particular action. These
forms are set forth in the Appendix of Forms in this volume. Unless the judicial
authority orders otherwise, the frequency of use of interrogatories in all actions except
those for which interrogatories have been set forth in Forms 201, 202, 203, 208 and/or
210 of the rules of practice is not limited.
(c) The standard interrogatories are intended to address discovery needs in most
cases in which their use is mandated, but they do not preclude any party from
moving for permission to serve such additional discovery as may be necessary in
any particular case. [(c)](d) In lieu of serving the interrogatories set forth in Forms
201, 202, 203, 208 and/or 210 of the rules of practice on a party who is represented by
counsel, the moving party may serve on such party a notice of interrogatories, which
shall not include the actual interrogatories to be answered, but shall instead set forth the
number of the Practice Book form containing such interrogatories and the name of the
party to whom the interrogatories are directed. The party to whom such notice is
directed shall in his or her response set forth each interrogatory immediately followed
by that party’s answer thereto. [(d)](e) The party serving interrogatories or the notice of
interrogatories shall not file them with the court. [(e)](f) Unless leave of court is
granted, the instructions to Forms 201 through 203 are to be used for all nonstandard
interrogatories.
COMMENTARY: The change to this section is intended to make clear that standard
interrogatories are intended to meet the discovery needs of most motor vehicle and
premises liability personal injury cases but that they can be supplemented upon motion
as necessary in a particular case.”
WHEREFORE, the Defendants never sought permission for these interrogatories;
nevertheless, the Plaintiff has complied. Nonsuit should be denied.
4
THE PLAINTIFF,
HEATHER RYAN
BY: /s/ 303542
Joseph Tramuta, Esq.
Minnella, Tramuta & Edwards
40 Middlebury Road
Middlebury, CT 06762
Ph. (203) 573-1411
Fax. (203) 757-9313
Juris No. 433342
ORDER
The foregoing Objection to Motion having been presented to the Court is hereby ORDERED:
SUSTAINED / DENIED
THE COURT
By:_____________________________________
Clerk/Judge
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Objection to Nonsuit was mailed or
electronically delivered on this 19th day of April 2022 to the following counsel of record and
that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel who were
electronically served:
Michelle Napoli, Esq.
Morrison Mahoney LLP
1 Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Ph. (860) 616-4441
Fax. (860) 541-4855
Email. mnapoli@morrisonmahoney.com
5
Deborah Etlinger
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
750 Main Street, Suite 200
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Ph. (860) 317-9056
Fax. (860) 548-1223
Email. detlinger@NPMLAW.com
BY /s/303542
Joseph Tramuta, Esq.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
6
Preview
DOCKET NO. NNH-CV21-6115802-S : SUPERIOR COURT HEATHER RYAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN VS. : AT NEW HAVEN LYNDA M. BARONE, Et. Al. : APRIL 19, 2022 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NONSUIT Plaintiff, through counsel, hereby objects to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment of Nonsuit dated April 7, 2022, which was based on a claimed refusal to cooperate in discovery and provide materials required by court order. Plaintiff contends that she has rectified any deficiencies claimed by Defendants in their motion, as well as any additional claimed deficiencies that counsel for the Defendants has subsequently raised after review of additional discovery. The Defendants claim nonsuit should enter “as a result of her failure to provide complete responses to the Defendants’ discovery requests, and additionally for the reason that she failed to provide verified responses by the Court ordered deadline of April 5, 2022.” As to the VERIFIED answers needing a signature, Plaintiff has had a difficult time leaving the house due to concerns over her condition in the covid-19 pandemic and had been consulting with counsel over the phone as much as possible so as to minimize outside exposure. Still, Plaintiff rectified this and filed compliance (See #158.00 Notice of Supp. Compliance - Signature Page to Interrogatories & Supp. Responses to Nos. 69, 70, 71 & 87 dated 04/18/2022). Defendants’ claim the filed answers were “uncertified; meaning that the defendant cannot rely on the responses because the plaintiff has made no affirmation as to the integrity of the responses” is now MOOT. Further, responses have been filed for the interrogatories which Defendants claim were defective. The specific questions defendants complain about are below, including the original answer and the amended answer: Question 69. “Please define "living out of boxes" as was described in your rental application to live at the subject property. ORIGINAL ANSWER: Plaintiff had thought that she had secured a home to move into from the last property she inhabited, and she had put been preparing to move out, but the deal had fallen through. So, she had began to pack as though moving out already, but did not have a location secured. 1 FURTHER ANSWER: Plaintiff had “lived out of boxes” while at her last residence, because she had packed yet did not move, so rather than unpack, she continued by removing and replacing items from her already packed boxes. Question 70. Please state the duration of the period you were "living out of boxes." ORIGINAL ANSWER: Unknown FURTHER ANSWER: Plaintiff “lived in boxes” for about one month. Question 71. During the period described in your response to interrogatory 72, where were your boxes and/or belongings stored? ORIGINAL ANSWER: Assuming this question is actually referring to interrogatory 70, plaintiff does not know. She moved her belongings from location to location when she moved. FURTHER ANSWER: The question incorrectly refers to Interrogatory 72 and is nonsensical. However, Plaintiff packed in boxes to move from her old home to a new one; the new one fell through, the boxes stayed in her old home until she moved the boxes into the Defendants’ home. As the court can see, this discovery is immaterial, irrelevant, and provides no information; nor does it pertain to any issue of the lawsuit. The Defendants’ demand for judgment based on counsel’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to provide an adequate answer is disingenuous. With regard to interrogatory #87, the Plaintiff has instructed the undersigned to delete any claim for lost income or aggravation of her PTSD, which is the basis of her Social Security Disability. Upon information and belief, the events that led to her PTSD are extremely traumatic and Plaintiff has decided not to seek any compensation for the aggravation or exacerbation as it will only harm her further. The Court will note the Plaintiff has filed # 157.00 REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT/AMENDMENT on April 13, 2022, to delete any claim for lost income and exacerbation of a prior mental illness (PTSD) that is so severe it warranted awarding Social Security Disability. Question 87. Please state whether you been diagnosed with any disability, prior to the commencement of your tenancy on the subject property. If your responses in the affirmative, please provide the name of any provider who you consulted with relative to that condition, the dates of any treatment, the specific diagnosis, the prognosis or duration of said disability, whether you received any benefits or compensation as a result of said disability determination and provide any records and reports relative thereto. 2 ORIGINAL ANSWER: Yes. Provider: Unknown – Psychiatrist in Greenwich Dates of Treatment: 2014 Specific Diagnosis: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Prognosis/ Duration: Lifetime Benefits: Social Security Disability Records unavailable FURTHER ANSWER: George L. Hogben, MD. Production 25. Any and all medical expenses you have incurred for hospitalization, medical care, x-rays, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic expenses, medication, or any other medical or psychological treatment expenses for any injury you are alleging in your Complaint. Defendant requests a detailed invoice reflecting payment by any sources towards such expenses. ORIGINAL ANSWER: Schedule A provided, to be updated upon receipt of additional records. FURTHER ANSWER: We have provided all billing records in our possession, and have provided authorizations to obtain any additional medical records and billing. Production 39. Produce evidence of any and all rental payment tendered by you or anyone on your behalf relative to your subject premises. ORIGINAL ANSWER: To be provided. FURTHER ANSWER: Records for payment have been requested and will be provided upon receipt. The Plaintiff has complied in all material respects with the Defendants’ Interrogatories, which were noticed as “Service of standard discovery to plaintiff” on August 11, 2021. In fact, Defendants did not file “standard discovery.” Per their later Motion for Compliance dated February 1, 2022, Defendants specifically filed “nonstandard interrogatories and requests for production.” Plaintiff answered standard discovery requests, only to be told that Defendants emailed Plaintiff nonstandard discovery requests, which were caught in our spam filter and were not received. So, Plaintiff scrambled to rectify this error. The Practice Book clearly REQUIRES the Defendants to seek permission to file this type of interrogatories. In the amendments on June 24, 2016, the judges of the Superior Court adopted revisions to the Practice Book. “The revisions will be officially released on July 12, 2016, by being published in the Connecticut Law Journal and will become effective on January 1, 2017.” 3 P.B. 13-6 was amended to read: (b) Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Sections 13-2 through 13-5 and the answers may be used at trial to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. In all personal injury actions alleging liability based on the operation or ownership of a motor vehicle or alleging liability based on the ownership, maintenance or control of real property, the interrogatories shall be limited to those set forth in Forms 201, 202, 203, 208 and/or 210 of the rules of practice, unless upon motion, the judicial authority determines that such interrogatories are inappropriate or inadequate in the particular action. These forms are set forth in the Appendix of Forms in this volume. Unless the judicial authority orders otherwise, the frequency of use of interrogatories in all actions except those for which interrogatories have been set forth in Forms 201, 202, 203, 208 and/or 210 of the rules of practice is not limited. (c) The standard interrogatories are intended to address discovery needs in most cases in which their use is mandated, but they do not preclude any party from moving for permission to serve such additional discovery as may be necessary in any particular case. [(c)](d) In lieu of serving the interrogatories set forth in Forms 201, 202, 203, 208 and/or 210 of the rules of practice on a party who is represented by counsel, the moving party may serve on such party a notice of interrogatories, which shall not include the actual interrogatories to be answered, but shall instead set forth the number of the Practice Book form containing such interrogatories and the name of the party to whom the interrogatories are directed. The party to whom such notice is directed shall in his or her response set forth each interrogatory immediately followed by that party’s answer thereto. [(d)](e) The party serving interrogatories or the notice of interrogatories shall not file them with the court. [(e)](f) Unless leave of court is granted, the instructions to Forms 201 through 203 are to be used for all nonstandard interrogatories. COMMENTARY: The change to this section is intended to make clear that standard interrogatories are intended to meet the discovery needs of most motor vehicle and premises liability personal injury cases but that they can be supplemented upon motion as necessary in a particular case.” WHEREFORE, the Defendants never sought permission for these interrogatories; nevertheless, the Plaintiff has complied. Nonsuit should be denied. 4 THE PLAINTIFF, HEATHER RYAN BY: /s/ 303542 Joseph Tramuta, Esq. Minnella, Tramuta & Edwards 40 Middlebury Road Middlebury, CT 06762 Ph. (203) 573-1411 Fax. (203) 757-9313 Juris No. 433342 ORDER The foregoing Objection to Motion having been presented to the Court is hereby ORDERED: SUSTAINED / DENIED THE COURT By:_____________________________________ Clerk/Judge CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Objection to Nonsuit was mailed or electronically delivered on this 19th day of April 2022 to the following counsel of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel who were electronically served: Michelle Napoli, Esq. Morrison Mahoney LLP 1 Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Ph. (860) 616-4441 Fax. (860) 541-4855 Email. mnapoli@morrisonmahoney.com 5 Deborah Etlinger Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 750 Main Street, Suite 200 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Ph. (860) 317-9056 Fax. (860) 548-1223 Email. detlinger@NPMLAW.com BY /s/303542 Joseph Tramuta, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court 6