Document for BURTON,NANCY v. MASON,DAVID PHILIP

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                X06-UWY-CV21-5028294-S                            SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON                                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY
        v.

DAVID P. MASON
   ETAL.                                          MAY 2, 2024


       PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HER OBJECTION TO TOWN
                DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Plaintiff moves to supplement her objection to the Town Defendants’ Motion fon

Summary Judgment to incorporate the complaint in Peter J. Valenti, Jr., Administrator of

Estate of Peter Valenti III et al., v. Town of Redding et al. Police Department et al.,

Return Date October 31, 2017, Superior Court, Judicial District of Danbury (“Valenti

Complaint’) (copy attached electronically hereto) and to thereby supplement her said

objection in the instant matter accordingly.

   Certain allegations in the Valenti Complaint allege practices and conduct by

members of the Redding Police Department and defendant Chief Mark O’Donnell which

are relevant and probative of certain allegations of the current complaint — such as the

Valenti allegations of negligence of the Police Department (First Count); negligence of

Chief O’Donnell (Fifth Count); gross negligence of the Police Department (Eighth and

Twelfth Counts); gross negligence of Chief O’Donnell (Twelfth Count); willful, wanton

and reckless conduct by Redding Police Department (Fifteenth Count); willful, wanton

and reckless conduct by Chief O’Donnell (Nineteenth Count): medical negligence by

Redding Police Department (Twenty-Second Count); medical negligence by Chief

O'Donnell (Twenty-Sixth Count); negligent infliction of emotional distress by Redding
Police Department (Forty-Second Count); intentional infliction of emotional distress by

Redding Police Department (Forty-Fifth Count). Moreover, following Mr. Valenti’s

death, Defendant Pemberton elevated Capt. O’Donnell to the top position within the

Redding Police Department: that of Chief of Police, a position he has held without

interruption to date.

   As an example, the Valenti complaint includes allegations that some Town of

Redding defendants “failed to comply with applicable policies and procedures and supervision

and training” and engaged in such deceitful practices as deliberately obscuring the view of

police cameras so the troublesome views could not be recorded for later review.

   The above-cited counts of the Valenti Complaint correspond in varying degrees

legally and factually to Paragraphs 34, 38, 39, 40, 46. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60,

63, 64, 65, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 89 of the Plaintiffs Fifth

Amended Complaint (#328.00) which the Court (Bellis, J.) has identified as the

presently operative complaint in her May 1, 2024 Memorandum of Law Re: Motion for

Summary Judgment (#460).

   It is noted that it appears that Town Defendants’ attorneys (James Tallberg, Kimberly

Bosse and Stephen Stafstrom) may be wrongfully withholding the litigation file created

in the Valenti matter from which the attached Complaint derives. From their responses

to Plaintiff's queries to review the entire Va/enti litigation file, both appear to not be in

possession of the file. Neither Attorney Tallberg nor Attorney Bosse (whose firm

represented the Town of Redding defendants in Valenti ) nor Attorney Stafstrom has (1)

expressly denied possession of the file nor (2) released any portion of the file after
separating out protected or privileged materials. Such acts appear to constitute

oppressive litigation tactics and significantly hamper Plaintiff's rights in this litigation.

   In the instant matter, the illegal seizure of Plaintiff's goats occurred after agents of

the state, working in close collaboration with Town of Redding defendants including

Police Chief O’Donnell, reported falsely to the officials in charge of the seizure that

during their surveillance “watch,” supposedly a 24-hour round-the-clock operation for

four continuous days of Plaintiff's property, they failed to observe Plaintiff serving water

to the goats. These logged accounts were either deliberate falsehoods or reflections of

facts (withheld) that their surveillance operation was not continuous, as they

represented to the Court. Although Assistant Attorney General Matthew Levine

represented to the Court that he would make the logs available to the Court in

compliance with a subpoena Plaintiff issued to animal control officer Charles

DellaRocco. However, he failed to do so. During the hearing before Judge Cobb, Mr.

DellaRocco testified that he was unaware of any subpoena and he was unaware that

Levine had represented to Judge Borden that DellaRocco would have the logs available

to present during the Cobb hearing. These facts strongly support a finding contrary to

Judge Cobb's finding, inter alia, that the state credibly established that Plaintiff did not

provide the goats with sufficient water,    a devastating yet crucial finding entirely without

basis. Since the goats showed no visible nor physical signs of being water-deprived,

and in fact they were not, and her expert witness supported her position, she relied on

Officer DellaRocco’s   reliance on Redding police reports, which were wrongfully

withheld from the Court by the Office of the Attorney General.
Allowance of the Valenti Complaint is a valid step on the path of identifying the

actionable acts of misconduct in the present matter by the Redding Defendants by

identifying a pattern of such misconduct on the part of such Defendants for purposes of

the motion for summary judgment.



                                          THE PLAINTIFF


                                               La
                                                      OF
                                          14   Gross Highway
                                         Redding CT 06896
                                         Tel. 203-313-1510
                                         NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically on May 2, 2024
to all counsel of record.


                                                N
                                                (~
                                                  B ,