Preview
DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV20-6127575 : SUPERIOR COURT
:
DOMININC SANSONE : J.D. OF HARTFORD
:
V. : AT HARTFORD
:
RALSON G. LENNON, ET AL. : OCTOBER 14, 2022
06110 • 203-399-0000
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The undersigned Plaintiff hereby replies to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order dated October 3, 2022 (#145.00).
Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT
A. As to the Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiff has no objection to being questioned regarding medical records not in the
#
defense’s possession at the time of the initial deposition. However, questioning Plaintiff regarding
Juris # 438704
HARTFORD,
TJC•ESQ, psc
medical records disclosed since the prior deposition session does not require re-questioning as to
A. Goff,
the facts of the subject motor vehicle incident. If a deposition is left open because some additional
433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST
Brooke
medical documentation needs to be obtained for further questioning, that does not entitle the
defense to then conduct a second full deposition of the Plaintiff. Defense Counsel must conduct
her discovery in good-faith and not seek to vitiate the rules of discovery by utilizing a continued
deposition to conduct a second full deposition.
Further, as noted in the Motion for Protective Order, the first session of the Plaintiff’s
deposition was not videotaped. Defense Counsel’s desire to videotape this session, combined with
her arguments that she should be permitted to re-question the Plaintiff regarding the facts of the
accident, indicate that Defense Counsel intends to attempt a second full deposition of the Plaintiff
in order to harass or bully the Plaintiff, and to capture this on videotape. Given that the Plaintiff
was already deposed without videotaping, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s assertion is that the presence of a
-1 -
video camera at this second session of the deposition, in and of itself, will be tantamount to
harassment and bullying.
B. As to Discovery
In response to the Defendants’ claims in the Objection regarding outstanding prior records
06110 • 203-399-0000
– noting the fact that those claims are entirely irrelevant to the Motion for Protective Order – the
Plaintiff provides the following information regarding the status of the Plaintiff’s discovery
disclosures in this matter, as specified in the Defendants’ Objection:
(1) Defendants claim all prior VA records of treatment, including VA Vocational
Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT
Rehab records, are outstanding. This is not the case. Plaintiff previously disclosed all Connecticut
VA records in Counsel’s possession and has since – on September 27, 2022 – made a request to
#
Juris # 438704
HARTFORD,
the Missouri VA for its full file, and, as Plaintiff’s Counsel has been doing since filing an
TJC•ESQ, psc
appearance, will provide the records to the Defendants upon receipt.
433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST A. Goff,
(2) Defendants claim mental health records from Missouri dating from 2013 are
Brooke
outstanding. Again, this is not accurate. All Missouri treatment records that exist, upon
information and belief, have been disclosed.
(3) Defendants claim medical records from the US Army relating to injuries sustained
during the Plaintiff’s tour in Afghanistan, up and though his medical retirement by the Army in
2016 and Tricare documentation of services provided, are outstanding. This is inaccurate. On
March 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel disclosed the Plaintiff’s full Army file to Defense Counsel.
(4) Defendants claim the tax returns that have been provided are for the years 2019 and
2020 and the rest remain outstanding. This is inaccurate. Plaintiff’s Counsel has disclosed the
Plaintiff’s tax returns for tax years 2015-2020. Plaintiff recently filed his 2021 tax return and is
providing same to Plaintiff’s Counsel; this will be disclosed to Defense Counsel upon receipt, as
have all prior tax years’ returns.
-2 -
C. Conclusion
Regardless of any arguments – unfounded as they may be – that the Plaintiff is
noncompliant with document discovery, that is neither here nor there in the consideration of a
Motion for Protective Order as to a continued deposition. Plaintiff has the right to pursue his claim
06110 • 203-399-0000
free of harassment, bullying, and embarrassment. Plaintiff’s Counsel asserts that the Defense
should be limited during the second deposition session to good-faith questioning limited to medical
records not in the Defense’s possession at the time of the first deposition session, and that the
Plaintiff should be protected from this deposition continuation being videotaped.
Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT
THE PLAINTIFF,
DOMINIC SANSONE
#
Juris # 438704
HARTFORD,
TJC•ESQ, psc
By:
Tiffany L. Sabato, Esq.
A. Goff,
Goff Law Group LLC
433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST
433 South Main Street, Suite 328
Brooke
West Hartford, CT 06110
Phone: 203-399-0000
Fax: 203-295-3666
Juris No.: 438704
-3 -
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the above was electronically delivered on the above
referenced date to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for
electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were
electronically served.
Attorney for Defendants
06110 • 203-399-0000
Michael P. Del Sole, Esq.
Ellen M. Costello, Esq.
Del Sole & Del Sole, LLP
46 South Whittlesey Avenue
Wallingford, CT 06492
Accepts E-Service: michael@delsoledelsole.com; ellen@delsoledelsole.com
Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT
By
#
Tiffany L. Sabato, Esq.
Juris # 438704
HARTFORD,
Commissioner of the Superior Court
TJC•ESQ, psc
433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST
Brooke A. Goff,
-4 -
Preview
DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV20-6127575 : SUPERIOR COURT : DOMININC SANSONE : J.D. OF HARTFORD : V. : AT HARTFORD : RALSON G. LENNON, ET AL. : OCTOBER 14, 2022 06110 • 203-399-0000 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The undersigned Plaintiff hereby replies to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order dated October 3, 2022 (#145.00). Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT A. As to the Motion for Protective Order Plaintiff has no objection to being questioned regarding medical records not in the # defense’s possession at the time of the initial deposition. However, questioning Plaintiff regarding Juris # 438704 HARTFORD, TJC•ESQ, psc medical records disclosed since the prior deposition session does not require re-questioning as to A. Goff, the facts of the subject motor vehicle incident. If a deposition is left open because some additional 433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST Brooke medical documentation needs to be obtained for further questioning, that does not entitle the defense to then conduct a second full deposition of the Plaintiff. Defense Counsel must conduct her discovery in good-faith and not seek to vitiate the rules of discovery by utilizing a continued deposition to conduct a second full deposition. Further, as noted in the Motion for Protective Order, the first session of the Plaintiff’s deposition was not videotaped. Defense Counsel’s desire to videotape this session, combined with her arguments that she should be permitted to re-question the Plaintiff regarding the facts of the accident, indicate that Defense Counsel intends to attempt a second full deposition of the Plaintiff in order to harass or bully the Plaintiff, and to capture this on videotape. Given that the Plaintiff was already deposed without videotaping, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s assertion is that the presence of a -1 - video camera at this second session of the deposition, in and of itself, will be tantamount to harassment and bullying. B. As to Discovery In response to the Defendants’ claims in the Objection regarding outstanding prior records 06110 • 203-399-0000 – noting the fact that those claims are entirely irrelevant to the Motion for Protective Order – the Plaintiff provides the following information regarding the status of the Plaintiff’s discovery disclosures in this matter, as specified in the Defendants’ Objection: (1) Defendants claim all prior VA records of treatment, including VA Vocational Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT Rehab records, are outstanding. This is not the case. Plaintiff previously disclosed all Connecticut VA records in Counsel’s possession and has since – on September 27, 2022 – made a request to # Juris # 438704 HARTFORD, the Missouri VA for its full file, and, as Plaintiff’s Counsel has been doing since filing an TJC•ESQ, psc appearance, will provide the records to the Defendants upon receipt. 433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST A. Goff, (2) Defendants claim mental health records from Missouri dating from 2013 are Brooke outstanding. Again, this is not accurate. All Missouri treatment records that exist, upon information and belief, have been disclosed. (3) Defendants claim medical records from the US Army relating to injuries sustained during the Plaintiff’s tour in Afghanistan, up and though his medical retirement by the Army in 2016 and Tricare documentation of services provided, are outstanding. This is inaccurate. On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel disclosed the Plaintiff’s full Army file to Defense Counsel. (4) Defendants claim the tax returns that have been provided are for the years 2019 and 2020 and the rest remain outstanding. This is inaccurate. Plaintiff’s Counsel has disclosed the Plaintiff’s tax returns for tax years 2015-2020. Plaintiff recently filed his 2021 tax return and is providing same to Plaintiff’s Counsel; this will be disclosed to Defense Counsel upon receipt, as have all prior tax years’ returns. -2 - C. Conclusion Regardless of any arguments – unfounded as they may be – that the Plaintiff is noncompliant with document discovery, that is neither here nor there in the consideration of a Motion for Protective Order as to a continued deposition. Plaintiff has the right to pursue his claim 06110 • 203-399-0000 free of harassment, bullying, and embarrassment. Plaintiff’s Counsel asserts that the Defense should be limited during the second deposition session to good-faith questioning limited to medical records not in the Defense’s possession at the time of the first deposition session, and that the Plaintiff should be protected from this deposition continuation being videotaped. Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT THE PLAINTIFF, DOMINIC SANSONE # Juris # 438704 HARTFORD, TJC•ESQ, psc By: Tiffany L. Sabato, Esq. A. Goff, Goff Law Group LLC 433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST 433 South Main Street, Suite 328 Brooke West Hartford, CT 06110 Phone: 203-399-0000 Fax: 203-295-3666 Juris No.: 438704 -3 - CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was electronically delivered on the above referenced date to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were electronically served. Attorney for Defendants 06110 • 203-399-0000 Michael P. Del Sole, Esq. Ellen M. Costello, Esq. Del Sole & Del Sole, LLP 46 South Whittlesey Avenue Wallingford, CT 06492 Accepts E-Service: michael@delsoledelsole.com; ellen@delsoledelsole.com Esq. JurisCONNECTICUT By # Tiffany L. Sabato, Esq. Juris # 438704 HARTFORD, Commissioner of the Superior Court TJC•ESQ, psc 433 S MAIN STREET SUITE 328, WEST Brooke A. Goff, -4 -