On April 21, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nancy Burton,
and
Bryan Hurlburt,Commissioner,Ct Dept Of Agriculture,
Building Department, Town Of Redding Ct,
Charles Dellarocco, Animal Control Officer,Ct Dept. Of Agriculture,
David Philip Mason,
Dennis Gibbon,
Department Of Agriculture,State Of Connecticut,
Elinore Carmody,
Health Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,Redding,
Julia Pemberton First Selectman,Town Or Redding,
Mark O'Donnell Chief Of Police,
Police Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,
Susan Winters,
Town Of Redding,Connecticut C O Town Clerk,
for M00 - Misc - Injunction
in the District Court of New Haven County.
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff :
: COMPLEX LITIGATION
v. : DOCKET
: AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. :
Defendants : OCTOBER 17, 2022
MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE RE: STATE DEFENDANTS’
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P.
Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State
Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) 1 hereby move
for an order that Plaintiff comply with the CT Practice Book Rules on discovery and respond to
interrogatories and requests for production. On July 1, 2022, State Defendants served Plaintiff its
first set of interrogatories and requests for production, via email. On July 6, 2022, the
undersigned emailed Defendant seeking confirmation that she received the above referenced
discovery requests. The responses and production were due in sixty (60) days, pursuant to CT
Practice Book §§ 13-7 & 13-10. On September 8, 2022, the undersigned emailed Plaintiff to
inquire as to the status of the discovery requests. That same day, Plaintiff represented that the
responses were delayed due to being “inundated with multiple deadlines” and indicated that the
responses would be produced “no later than September 14.” On September 12, 2022, the
undersigned re-sent the interrogatories and requests for production and inquired as to the status
1
Only one of Plaintiff’s claims remains. The other claims were dismissed (Entry No. 232.00),
largely on the basis of sovereign immunity, or stricken as legally insufficient (Entry No. 356.00).
The only remaining claim is against Officer DellaRocco, in his personal capacity, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
1
of the responses. On September 19, 2022, the undersigned emailed Plaintiff again to inquire as
to the status of the responses. Ultimately, the responses were produced on September 23, 2022.
(ATTACHMENT A.) Despite the significant time available for Plaintiff to respond, Plaintiff
chose to make numerous groundless objections and simply refused to answer a number of
interrogatories for various reasons. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to produce a single document
pursuant to the requests for production. "Practice Book § 13-14 provides sanctions for failure to
answer interrogatories, which the court may order upon motion as the ends of justice require.”
Magana v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 164 Conn. App. 729, 733 (2016), citing Tuccio v.
Garamella, 114 Conn. App. 205, 208 (2009).
First and foremost, Plaintiff’s objections are waived as they are untimely under Practice
Book §§ 13-8 & 13-10, and she did not file the objections with the Court, as required by Practice
Book § 13-7. Second, with respect to those interrogatories to which the Plaintiff did not object,
her answers were often vague, evasive, and disingenuous. For example, Plaintiff refused to
disclose what kind of “public interest endeavors,” (Compl. ¶ 87), she has ever engaged in, when,
and who might have knowledge of those activities. These basic facts would be necessary to form
Plaintiff’s claim of First Amendment violations, yet Plaintiff continues to shroud them in
mystery. Given that Plaintiff has failed to offer any facts that could substantiate the basis for her
claims, this action cannot proceed without genuine responses to interrogatories. Third, Plaintiff
refused to produce any documents requested. Plaintiff provided numerous evasive responses to
requests for production without affirming whether the requested documents exist or are in her
possession. If it is true, that the “[d]evelopment of evidence to be offered is underway but not yet
complete,” (Ans. to Interrog. #40), then this action should go no further until Plaintiff discloses
what evidence she presently has, if any.
2
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, State Defendants respectfully request that this
Motion for Order of Compliance be granted, and that the Court enter an appropriate order in
accordance with Practice Book § 13-14, as follows:
(1) The entry of a nonsuit;
(2) The award to State Defendants of the costs of this motion, including reasonable
attorney’s fees;
(3) 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 purposes of demonstrating that there is
no evidence to support a claim of violations of the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution;
(4) The entry of an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from introducing designated matters in
evidence; and
(5) The entry of a judgment of dismissal.
DEFENDANTS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE
CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ___434270_____________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 434270
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
3
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Motion for Order of Compliance was delivered
electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties October 17, 2022:
Nancy Burton
154 Highland Ave.
Rowayton, CT 06853
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
pnewbury@hl-law.com
Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Michael D. Riseberg
Christine N. Parise
Rubin & Rudman, LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com
CParise@rubinrudman.com
____434270_________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Commissioner of the Superior Court
4
ATTACHMENT A
5
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff : : COMPLEX LITIGATION v. : DOCKET : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. : Defendants : OCTOBER 17, 2022 MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE RE: STATE DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P. Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) 1 hereby move for an order that Plaintiff comply with the CT Practice Book Rules on discovery and respond to interrogatories and requests for production. On July 1, 2022, State Defendants served Plaintiff its first set of interrogatories and requests for production, via email. On July 6, 2022, the undersigned emailed Defendant seeking confirmation that she received the above referenced discovery requests. The responses and production were due in sixty (60) days, pursuant to CT Practice Book §§ 13-7 & 13-10. On September 8, 2022, the undersigned emailed Plaintiff to inquire as to the status of the discovery requests. That same day, Plaintiff represented that the responses were delayed due to being “inundated with multiple deadlines” and indicated that the responses would be produced “no later than September 14.” On September 12, 2022, the undersigned re-sent the interrogatories and requests for production and inquired as to the status 1 Only one of Plaintiff’s claims remains. The other claims were dismissed (Entry No. 232.00), largely on the basis of sovereign immunity, or stricken as legally insufficient (Entry No. 356.00). The only remaining claim is against Officer DellaRocco, in his personal capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 of the responses. On September 19, 2022, the undersigned emailed Plaintiff again to inquire as to the status of the responses. Ultimately, the responses were produced on September 23, 2022. (ATTACHMENT A.) Despite the significant time available for Plaintiff to respond, Plaintiff chose to make numerous groundless objections and simply refused to answer a number of interrogatories for various reasons. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to produce a single document pursuant to the requests for production. "Practice Book § 13-14 provides sanctions for failure to answer interrogatories, which the court may order upon motion as the ends of justice require.” Magana v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 164 Conn. App. 729, 733 (2016), citing Tuccio v. Garamella, 114 Conn. App. 205, 208 (2009). First and foremost, Plaintiff’s objections are waived as they are untimely under Practice Book §§ 13-8 & 13-10, and she did not file the objections with the Court, as required by Practice Book § 13-7. Second, with respect to those interrogatories to which the Plaintiff did not object, her answers were often vague, evasive, and disingenuous. For example, Plaintiff refused to disclose what kind of “public interest endeavors,” (Compl. ¶ 87), she has ever engaged in, when, and who might have knowledge of those activities. These basic facts would be necessary to form Plaintiff’s claim of First Amendment violations, yet Plaintiff continues to shroud them in mystery. Given that Plaintiff has failed to offer any facts that could substantiate the basis for her claims, this action cannot proceed without genuine responses to interrogatories. Third, Plaintiff refused to produce any documents requested. Plaintiff provided numerous evasive responses to requests for production without affirming whether the requested documents exist or are in her possession. If it is true, that the “[d]evelopment of evidence to be offered is underway but not yet complete,” (Ans. to Interrog. #40), then this action should go no further until Plaintiff discloses what evidence she presently has, if any. 2 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, State Defendants respectfully request that this Motion for Order of Compliance be granted, and that the Court enter an appropriate order in accordance with Practice Book § 13-14, as follows: (1) The entry of a nonsuit; (2) The award to State Defendants of the costs of this motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees; (3) 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 purposes of demonstrating that there is no evidence to support a claim of violations of the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (4) The entry of an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from introducing designated matters in evidence; and (5) The entry of a judgment of dismissal. DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ___434270_____________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 434270 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Motion for Order of Compliance was delivered electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties October 17, 2022: Nancy Burton 154 Highland Ave. Rowayton, CT 06853 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 pnewbury@hl-law.com Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com James N. Tallberg, Esq. Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Michael D. Riseberg Christine N. Parise Rubin & Rudman, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com CParise@rubinrudman.com ____434270_________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Commissioner of the Superior Court 4 ATTACHMENT A 5