On April 21, 2021 a
OBJECTION TO MOTION Town Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement MSJ Objection, DE Nos. 523.00, 524.00
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 : SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
vs. : AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL. : MAY 7, 2024
TOWN DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HER SUMMARY JUDGMENT OBJECTION
The defendants, Town of Redding, First Selectman Julia Pemberton, and Chief Mark O’Donnell
(collectively, the “Town Defendants”), hereby object to plaintiff’s untimely motion to supplement her
objection to the Town Defendants’ pending and argued motion for summary judgment as to all claims
against them [Docket Entry (“DE”) Nos. 523.00, 524.00] (“Pl’s Mot.”).
The Court’s familiarity with the facts of this case and the procedural history to date are
presumed. For purposes of emphasis, the Town Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of
plaintiff’s claims on November 2, 2023 [DE Nos. 491.00-493.00]. Plaintiff docketed her objection
thereto, piecemeal, on February 23 and 26, 2024 [DE Nos. 502.00-507.00]. The Town Defendants
timely filed a reply on March 8, 2024 [DE No. 509.00], and the Court heard oral argument on the
motion for summary judgment on April 15, 2024. The Court reserved decision on the motion and, as
such, the parties presently await the Court’s written decision and order.
Notwithstanding, on or about May 2, 2024, plaintiff filed the subject motion to supplement her
objection to the Town Defendants’ summary judgment motion to include as an Exhibit a Complaint filed
in 2017 in an unrelated legal action against the Town and certain of its police officers (the “Complaint”).
1
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030
Plaintiff argues that she should be allowed to supplement her summary judgment objection to include
this Complaint as an Exhibit thereto because the Complaint, inter alia, “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.” Pl’s Mot., at 2. But there are
no claims in plaintiff’s case against any of the Town Defendants that will turn on whether there was a
failure by Town employees or officials to comply with Town or Department customs, practices, or
policies in 2017, nor does the Complaint –a mere pleading that carries no evidentiary value – even
confirm whether such violations were actually committed seven years ago. Accordingly, leave to
supplement plaintiff’s objection should be denied.
Should this Court allow plaintiff to supplement her summary judgment objection, however, the
Town Defendants maintain that the inclusion of this Complaint as an Exhibit will have no material
impact on the arguments and defenses advanced by the Town Defendants in their motion for summary
judgment, as it is well settled that propensity evidence is not admissible for purposes of demonstrating a
likelihood to reoffend. Conn. Code Evid. § 4-5(a) (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of a person
is inadmissible to prove the bad character, propensity, or criminal tendencies of that person. . . .”).
Because of this, the stated purpose for which plaintiff seeks to add the Complaint as an Exhibit is
prohibited on its face. The Town Defendants’ additional arguments regarding the Complaint’s lack of
probative value in this case are also set forth in their objection to plaintiff’s motion to engage in limited
2
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030
discovery [DE Nos. 510.00, 511.00], which objection this Court sustained in denying plaintiff’s
discovery motion on April 26, 2024 [DE Nos. 510.20, 511.10].
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the Town of Redding, First Selectman Julia
Pemberton, and Chief Mark O’Donnell object to plaintiff’s motion to supplement her summary
judgment objection, and respectfully request that such motion be denied.
DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF REDDING, JULIA
PEMBERTON, AND MARK O’DONNELL
BY/ss/Kimberly A. Bosse
Kimberly A. Bosse
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
T: (860)233-5600
F: (860)233-5800
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
3
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was provided by US Mail, postage pre-paid, or
electronic mail pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 on May 7, 2024 to the following pro se parties and
counsel of record:
Nancy Burton, Pro Se David B. Stanhill
154 Highland Avenue Michael D. Riseberg
Rowayton, CT 06853 Christine N. Parisi
(203) 313-1510 53 State Street
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Boston, MA 02109
(667) 330-7102
dstanill@rubinrudman.com
mriseberg@rubinrudman.com
cparise@rubinrudman.com
Daniel Salton, Esq. Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Matthew Levine, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC
Carole Briggs, Esq. 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
AG-Environmental Bridgeport, CT 06601
165 Capitol Avenue, 5th Floor sstafstrom@pullcom.com
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 808-5172
Daniel.Salton@ct.gov
Matthew.Levine@ct.gov
Carole.Briggs@ct.gov
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
(860) 249-1361
pnewbury@hl-law.com
/ss/Kimberly A. Bosse
Kimberly A. Bosse
4
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO.: (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S : SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET vs. : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL. : MAY 7, 2024 TOWN DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HER SUMMARY JUDGMENT OBJECTION The defendants, Town of Redding, First Selectman Julia Pemberton, and Chief Mark O’Donnell (collectively, the “Town Defendants”), hereby object to plaintiff’s untimely motion to supplement her objection to the Town Defendants’ pending and argued motion for summary judgment as to all claims against them [Docket Entry (“DE”) Nos. 523.00, 524.00] (“Pl’s Mot.”). The Court’s familiarity with the facts of this case and the procedural history to date are presumed. For purposes of emphasis, the Town Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims on November 2, 2023 [DE Nos. 491.00-493.00]. Plaintiff docketed her objection thereto, piecemeal, on February 23 and 26, 2024 [DE Nos. 502.00-507.00]. The Town Defendants timely filed a reply on March 8, 2024 [DE No. 509.00], and the Court heard oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on April 15, 2024. The Court reserved decision on the motion and, as such, the parties presently await the Court’s written decision and order. Notwithstanding, on or about May 2, 2024, plaintiff filed the subject motion to supplement her objection to the Town Defendants’ summary judgment motion to include as an Exhibit a Complaint filed in 2017 in an unrelated legal action against the Town and certain of its police officers (the “Complaint”). 1 Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030 Plaintiff argues that she should be allowed to supplement her summary judgment objection to include this Complaint as an Exhibit thereto because the Complaint, inter alia, “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.” Pl’s Mot., at 2. But there are no claims in plaintiff’s case against any of the Town Defendants that will turn on whether there was a failure by Town employees or officials to comply with Town or Department customs, practices, or policies in 2017, nor does the Complaint –a mere pleading that carries no evidentiary value – even confirm whether such violations were actually committed seven years ago. Accordingly, leave to supplement plaintiff’s objection should be denied. Should this Court allow plaintiff to supplement her summary judgment objection, however, the Town Defendants maintain that the inclusion of this Complaint as an Exhibit will have no material impact on the arguments and defenses advanced by the Town Defendants in their motion for summary judgment, as it is well settled that propensity evidence is not admissible for purposes of demonstrating a likelihood to reoffend. Conn. Code Evid. § 4-5(a) (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of a person is inadmissible to prove the bad character, propensity, or criminal tendencies of that person. . . .”). Because of this, the stated purpose for which plaintiff seeks to add the Complaint as an Exhibit is prohibited on its face. The Town Defendants’ additional arguments regarding the Complaint’s lack of probative value in this case are also set forth in their objection to plaintiff’s motion to engage in limited 2 Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030 discovery [DE Nos. 510.00, 511.00], which objection this Court sustained in denying plaintiff’s discovery motion on April 26, 2024 [DE Nos. 510.20, 511.10]. WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the Town of Redding, First Selectman Julia Pemberton, and Chief Mark O’Donnell object to plaintiff’s motion to supplement her summary judgment objection, and respectfully request that such motion be denied. DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF REDDING, JULIA PEMBERTON, AND MARK O’DONNELL BY/ss/Kimberly A. Bosse Kimberly A. Bosse Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 T: (860)233-5600 F: (860)233-5800 kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com 3 Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was provided by US Mail, postage pre-paid, or electronic mail pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 on May 7, 2024 to the following pro se parties and counsel of record: Nancy Burton, Pro Se David B. Stanhill 154 Highland Avenue Michael D. Riseberg Rowayton, CT 06853 Christine N. Parisi (203) 313-1510 53 State Street NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Boston, MA 02109 (667) 330-7102 dstanill@rubinrudman.com mriseberg@rubinrudman.com cparise@rubinrudman.com Daniel Salton, Esq. Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Matthew Levine, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC Carole Briggs, Esq. 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 AG-Environmental Bridgeport, CT 06601 165 Capitol Avenue, 5th Floor sstafstrom@pullcom.com Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 808-5172 Daniel.Salton@ct.gov Matthew.Levine@ct.gov Carole.Briggs@ct.gov Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 (860) 249-1361 pnewbury@hl-law.com /ss/Kimberly A. Bosse Kimberly A. Bosse 4 Karsten & Tallberg, LLC • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, SUITE 4B • ROCKY HILL, CT 06067 • (860) 233-5600 • FAX: (860) 233-5800 • JURIS NO. 424030