Preview
DOCKET NO. KNL-CV23-6027426 S : SUPERIOR COURT
PETER GUNN : J.D. OF WINDHAM
VS. : AT PUTNAM
ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and
YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN : FEBRUARY 26, 2024
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO P.B. SECTION 13-14
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 13-14, the Plaintiff, Peter Gunn,
hereby motions the court to enter sanctions against the defendants, ISMEL
ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN, including (a) an award
of costs on the motion, including a reasonable attorney’s fee; (b) the entry of an
order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought be taken as
established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the plaintiff’s claims;
(c) the entry of an order prohibiting ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS
MANCEBO HODELIN from introducing matters designated in the interrogatories
and requests for production into evidence; and (d) an order of default as to both
defendants.
This motion is brought based upon the defendants’ failure to respond to
interrogatories fairly, or in the manner proscribed by Practice Book § 13-7 and their
DiFRANCESCA & complete failure to respond to requests for production, as required by Practice Book
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVENUE
NORWICH, CT 06360 § 13-10.
------------
(860) 889-3871
FAX (860) 889-7156
------------- In support of this motion, the plaintiff sets forth the following facts:
JURIS NO. 015363
1. The defendants, ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS
MANCEBO HODELIN, were served with separate sets of interrogatories and
requests for disclosure and production on December 7, 2023 – meaning that there
was one set of interrogatories and requests for disclosure and production served
upon the defendant, Polanco, and a separate set of interrogatories and requests for
production served upon the defendant, Hodelin.
2. Both defendants failed to object to the aforementioned discovery
requests and failed to timely respond to the aforementioned discovery requests
propounded upon them, resulting in a Motion to Compel being filed. (See
Computer File # 106).
3. After the Motion to Compel was filed, defendants’ counsel provided
the undersigned with a document entitled “Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s First Set
of Request for Interrogatories and Request for Production.” (hereinafter “Reply”).
The Reply was a joint response by both defendants, despite each defendant being
served with their own set of interrogatories and requests for production, in violation
of Practice Book § 13-7(a) (“Any such interrogatories shall be answered under oath
by the party to whom directed . . .”)(Emphasis added).
4. Filing a joint “Reply” makes it impossible for the plaintiff to discern
DIFRANCESCA & who is responding to an interrogatory. By way of example, the response offered to
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVE.
NORWICH, CT 06360
------------
Interrogatory 12(c), states “”He collected a couple of cash rents when I wasn’t
(860) 889-3871
FAX (860) 889-7156
------------- home . . .” The joint response makes it impossible for the plaintiff to understand to
JURIS NO. 015363
2
whom the reference to “I” is attributable. This example is not exhaustive and is just
one of many responses that fail to attribute the response to an identifiable
defendant.
5. The interrogatories “replied” to in the “Reply” were not the verbatim
interrogatories the plaintiff had propounded upon the defendants. For example,
one interrogatory asked the defendant, Polanco, to answer the following:
“2. State the amount of money the defendant paid as consideration to
acquire 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut (i.e. the purchase price), the
name of the person to whom said consideration was paid, the date of said
payment, and the method of said payment (i.e. check, cash, purchase money
mortgage, etc.).”
In responding to the interrogatory, the defendants recited the interrogatory as:
“2. State the amount of money the Defendant paid as consideration to
acquire 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut.”
In another example, Interrogatory no 7 asked the Defendant, Polanco, the
following:
“As to all insurance payments which the defendant claims to have paid for
the 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut since July 14, 2021, list the date
of each insurance payment, the amount of each insurance payment, the manner
in which the defendant made each insurance payment (i.e. check, cash, money
order, etc.), to whom the defendant made each insurance payment, and the
source of the funds which the defendant used to make each insurance payment.”
DIFRANCESCA & (Emphasis added.).
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVE.
NORWICH, CT 06360
------------
In responding to the interrogatory, the defendants removed the words “to
(860) 889-3871
FAX (860) 889-7156
------------- whom the defendant made each insurance payment.”
JURIS NO. 015363
3
In their “reply” to Interrogatory 14, the defendants did not reiterate or reply
to the subpart (a). Again, the aforementioned examples are not exhaustive as to
how the interrogatories recited in the “Reply” failed to accurately track the
interrogatories actually propounded.
6. Perhaps the most egregious issue is the defendants’ failure to
respond to the interrogatories under oath. Despite the mandate of Practice Book
Section $13-7(a) that “Any such interrogatories shall be answered under oath by
the party to whom directed”, neither defendant signed the “Reply” or signed the
“Reply” under oath. Instead, the “Reply” indicated that “The Defendants, Ismel
Espinal Polanco and Yohenis Mancebo Hodelin through counsel, Kevin D.
Wickless hereby reply to the Plaintiff’s requests as follows:” A response by counsel
is not compliance under the practice book, and given that answers to
interrogatories are judicial admissions, a reply by counsel for the defendants
impedes the plaintiff’s ability to conduct a proper cross-examination of the
defendants at trial. See Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 277-278 (1982).
7. The defendants’ “Reply” failed to provide any responses to the
Request for Production propounded. Practice Book 13-10(a) mandates “The party
DIFRANCESCA &
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVE. to whom the request is directed or such party’s attorney shall served a written
NORWICH, CT 06360
------------
(860) 889-3871 response . . . within sixty days after the date of certification of service . . .” Practice
FAX (860) 889-7156
-------------
JURIS NO. 015363
4
Book Section 13-10(b) states “All responses: (1) shall repeat immediately before
the response the request for production being responded to; and (2) shall state with
respect to each item or category that inspection and related activities will be
permitted as requested . . .” Practice Book Section 13-10(c) states “Where a
request calling for submission of copies of documents is not objected to, the party
responding to the request shall produce those copies with the response served
upon all parties.” The plaintiff propounded 38 Requests for Production upon the
defendant Polanco, and 15 upon the defendant, Hodelin. The defendants did not
respond to any of the requests for production.
8. The failure to comply with Practice Book §§ 13-7 and 13-10 makes it
impossible for the plaintiff to conduct further meaningful discovery, such as
depositions, and further makes it impossible for the plaintiff to prepare for a trial in
this matter.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned plaintiff respectfully requests the court
order the aforementioned sanctions provided for pursuant to Practice Book
Section 13-14(b).
THE PLAINTIFF, PETER GUNN
By: / s/ Beth A. Steele_______
Beth A. Steele
DIFRANCESCA & DiFrancesca & Steele, P.C.
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVE. P.O. Box 548, Norwich, CT 06360
NORWICH, CT 06360
------------
(860) 889-3871 Juris No. 409864
(860) 889-3871 Attorney for the Plaintiff
FAX (860) 889-7156
-------------
JURIS NO. 015363
5
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or
delivered electronically or non –electronically on February 26, 2024 to all
attorneys and self-represented parties of record and to all parties who have not
appeared in this matter and that written consent for electronic delivery was
received from all attorneys and self-represented parties receiving electronic
delivery.
Kevin D. Wickless, Esq.
114 Main Street
Norwich, CT 06360
kevin@kevinwicklesslaw.com
__/s/ Beth A. Steele______________
Beth A. Steele
Commissioner of the Superior Court
DIFRANCESCA &
STEELE, P.C.
811 BOSWELL AVE.
NORWICH, CT 06360
------------
(860) 889-3871
FAX (860) 889-7156
-------------
JURIS NO. 015363
6
Preview
DOCKET NO. KNL-CV23-6027426 S : SUPERIOR COURT PETER GUNN : J.D. OF WINDHAM VS. : AT PUTNAM ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN : FEBRUARY 26, 2024 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO P.B. SECTION 13-14 Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 13-14, the Plaintiff, Peter Gunn, hereby motions the court to enter sanctions against the defendants, ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN, including (a) an award of costs on the motion, including a reasonable attorney’s fee; (b) the entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought be taken as established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the plaintiff’s claims; (c) the entry of an order prohibiting ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN from introducing matters designated in the interrogatories and requests for production into evidence; and (d) an order of default as to both defendants. This motion is brought based upon the defendants’ failure to respond to interrogatories fairly, or in the manner proscribed by Practice Book § 13-7 and their DiFRANCESCA & complete failure to respond to requests for production, as required by Practice Book STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVENUE NORWICH, CT 06360 § 13-10. ------------ (860) 889-3871 FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- In support of this motion, the plaintiff sets forth the following facts: JURIS NO. 015363 1. The defendants, ISMEL ESPINAL POLANCO and YOHENIS MANCEBO HODELIN, were served with separate sets of interrogatories and requests for disclosure and production on December 7, 2023 – meaning that there was one set of interrogatories and requests for disclosure and production served upon the defendant, Polanco, and a separate set of interrogatories and requests for production served upon the defendant, Hodelin. 2. Both defendants failed to object to the aforementioned discovery requests and failed to timely respond to the aforementioned discovery requests propounded upon them, resulting in a Motion to Compel being filed. (See Computer File # 106). 3. After the Motion to Compel was filed, defendants’ counsel provided the undersigned with a document entitled “Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Interrogatories and Request for Production.” (hereinafter “Reply”). The Reply was a joint response by both defendants, despite each defendant being served with their own set of interrogatories and requests for production, in violation of Practice Book § 13-7(a) (“Any such interrogatories shall be answered under oath by the party to whom directed . . .”)(Emphasis added). 4. Filing a joint “Reply” makes it impossible for the plaintiff to discern DIFRANCESCA & who is responding to an interrogatory. By way of example, the response offered to STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVE. NORWICH, CT 06360 ------------ Interrogatory 12(c), states “”He collected a couple of cash rents when I wasn’t (860) 889-3871 FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- home . . .” The joint response makes it impossible for the plaintiff to understand to JURIS NO. 015363 2 whom the reference to “I” is attributable. This example is not exhaustive and is just one of many responses that fail to attribute the response to an identifiable defendant. 5. The interrogatories “replied” to in the “Reply” were not the verbatim interrogatories the plaintiff had propounded upon the defendants. For example, one interrogatory asked the defendant, Polanco, to answer the following: “2. State the amount of money the defendant paid as consideration to acquire 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut (i.e. the purchase price), the name of the person to whom said consideration was paid, the date of said payment, and the method of said payment (i.e. check, cash, purchase money mortgage, etc.).” In responding to the interrogatory, the defendants recited the interrogatory as: “2. State the amount of money the Defendant paid as consideration to acquire 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut.” In another example, Interrogatory no 7 asked the Defendant, Polanco, the following: “As to all insurance payments which the defendant claims to have paid for the 262-264 Broad Street, Killingly, Connecticut since July 14, 2021, list the date of each insurance payment, the amount of each insurance payment, the manner in which the defendant made each insurance payment (i.e. check, cash, money order, etc.), to whom the defendant made each insurance payment, and the source of the funds which the defendant used to make each insurance payment.” DIFRANCESCA & (Emphasis added.). STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVE. NORWICH, CT 06360 ------------ In responding to the interrogatory, the defendants removed the words “to (860) 889-3871 FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- whom the defendant made each insurance payment.” JURIS NO. 015363 3 In their “reply” to Interrogatory 14, the defendants did not reiterate or reply to the subpart (a). Again, the aforementioned examples are not exhaustive as to how the interrogatories recited in the “Reply” failed to accurately track the interrogatories actually propounded. 6. Perhaps the most egregious issue is the defendants’ failure to respond to the interrogatories under oath. Despite the mandate of Practice Book Section $13-7(a) that “Any such interrogatories shall be answered under oath by the party to whom directed”, neither defendant signed the “Reply” or signed the “Reply” under oath. Instead, the “Reply” indicated that “The Defendants, Ismel Espinal Polanco and Yohenis Mancebo Hodelin through counsel, Kevin D. Wickless hereby reply to the Plaintiff’s requests as follows:” A response by counsel is not compliance under the practice book, and given that answers to interrogatories are judicial admissions, a reply by counsel for the defendants impedes the plaintiff’s ability to conduct a proper cross-examination of the defendants at trial. See Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 277-278 (1982). 7. The defendants’ “Reply” failed to provide any responses to the Request for Production propounded. Practice Book 13-10(a) mandates “The party DIFRANCESCA & STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVE. to whom the request is directed or such party’s attorney shall served a written NORWICH, CT 06360 ------------ (860) 889-3871 response . . . within sixty days after the date of certification of service . . .” Practice FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- JURIS NO. 015363 4 Book Section 13-10(b) states “All responses: (1) shall repeat immediately before the response the request for production being responded to; and (2) shall state with respect to each item or category that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested . . .” Practice Book Section 13-10(c) states “Where a request calling for submission of copies of documents is not objected to, the party responding to the request shall produce those copies with the response served upon all parties.” The plaintiff propounded 38 Requests for Production upon the defendant Polanco, and 15 upon the defendant, Hodelin. The defendants did not respond to any of the requests for production. 8. The failure to comply with Practice Book §§ 13-7 and 13-10 makes it impossible for the plaintiff to conduct further meaningful discovery, such as depositions, and further makes it impossible for the plaintiff to prepare for a trial in this matter. WHEREFORE, the undersigned plaintiff respectfully requests the court order the aforementioned sanctions provided for pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-14(b). THE PLAINTIFF, PETER GUNN By: / s/ Beth A. Steele_______ Beth A. Steele DIFRANCESCA & DiFrancesca & Steele, P.C. STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVE. P.O. Box 548, Norwich, CT 06360 NORWICH, CT 06360 ------------ (860) 889-3871 Juris No. 409864 (860) 889-3871 Attorney for the Plaintiff FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- JURIS NO. 015363 5 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non –electronically on February 26, 2024 to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and to all parties who have not appeared in this matter and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-represented parties receiving electronic delivery. Kevin D. Wickless, Esq. 114 Main Street Norwich, CT 06360 kevin@kevinwicklesslaw.com __/s/ Beth A. Steele______________ Beth A. Steele Commissioner of the Superior Court DIFRANCESCA & STEELE, P.C. 811 BOSWELL AVE. NORWICH, CT 06360 ------------ (860) 889-3871 FAX (860) 889-7156 ------------- JURIS NO. 015363 6