Preview
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Docket NO.: (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON, SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
v.
AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL.
Defendants.
September 3, 2021
DEFENDANT MASON’S SPECIFIC DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS TO THE
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-196a, Defendant David Philip Mason
(“Mason” or “Defendant”) hereby files his specific discovery objections to the Plaintiff’s proposed
Interrogatories to Mason (#175.00) filed in response to Mason’s special motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (#144.00) and his memorandum in support thereof
(#145.00).1 Mason hereby files the following specific discovery objections as Ordered by this
Court in docket entries (#128.10) and (#171.10) wherein the Court allowed limited discovery only
as to the complaints referred to in paragraph 21 of the Mason affidavit.
Paragraph 21 of the Mason affidavit states: “I believe the Plaintiff has brought this suit
seeking retribution for my complaints and the complaints of my neighbors, which ultimately led
to an investigation and the Plaintiff’s arrest for animal cruelty due to her neglectful treatment of
her animals.” Mason objects to each of the Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
With regard to the issues, facts, and circumstances set forth in the complaint, as amended,
in this action, please identify in detail by date, location, manner and method of exercise (whether
orally or in writing) and method of communication of such exercise (whether orally, by mail, by
email, by social media, to the news media or any other method of communication) all instances
and occasion when you have exercised your “right to petition the government” as the phrase “right
1
Mason incorporates by reference the objections of any co-defendants in response to the Plaintiff’s proposed
interrogatories as if set forth fully herein.
1
2931365_1
to petition the government” is used in your Special Motion to Dismiss dated June 10, 2021, and
the names, positions, and addresses of the individuals and entities and agents of governmental
entities and all others to whom such communications were directed.
OBJECTION NO. 7
This interrogatory is overly broad, requests information equally accessible to the Plaintiff,
seeks information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product
doctrine, and seeks information that is irrelevant to Mason’s right to petition the government
wherein this interrogatory requests information, if any, related to Mason’s social media accounts
or communications with any news media, which are unrelated to Mason’s exercise of his right to
petition the government related to a matter of public concern. The Plaintiff requests that Mason
identify all instances in which he exercised his right to petition the government and also provide
the names, positions, and addresses of the individuals and entities to which his communications
were directed. This request is clearly unduly burdensome and likely to cause unnecessary expense
and delay in hearing Mason’s special motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff is already aware of a number
of instances where Mason exercised his right to petition the government, but even just one instance
of Mason exercising his right to petition the government is enough to grant Mason’s special motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The fact that there were multiple instances
where Mason exercised his protected right to petition the government related to a matter of public
concern does not warrant discovery into each and every instance.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
With regard to the issues, facts and circumstances set forth in the complaint as amended,
in this action, please disclose the exact words, language and verbiage used in each and every such
communication as identified above in paragraphs 7 and 8.
OBJECTION NO. 9
This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, requests information equally
accessible to the Plaintiff, seeks information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work product doctrine, and seeks information that is irrelevant to Mason’s right
to petition the government wherein this interrogatory requests information, if any, related to
Mason’s social media accounts or communications with any news media, which are unrelated to
Mason’s exercise of his right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern. The
Plaintiff also requests in Interrogatory number 9 that Mason “disclose the exact words, language
and verbiage used in each and every such communication as identified in paragraphs 7 and 8.”
This request is clearly unduly burdensome and likely to cause unnecessary expense and delay in
hearing Mason’s special motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff is already aware of a number of instances
where Mason exercised his right to petition the government, but even just one instance of Mason
exercising his right to petition the government is enough to grant Mason’s special motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The fact that there were multiple instances
where Mason exercised his protected right to petition the government related to a matter of public
concern does not warrant discovery into each and every instance.
2
2931365_1
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Please provide the facts which lead you to conclude that the instant suit is based on your
alleged exercise of your “right to petition the government” and/or your “right of association.”
OBJECTION NO. 10
This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence because Mason’s conclusions about whether the instant lawsuit is based on his exercise
of his right to petition the government or his right of association are irrelevant to the Court’s ruling
on Mason’s special motion to dismiss. Further, this interrogatory seeks information and/or
documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
What is relevant to this suit are the Plaintiff’s numerous allegations in the complaint and other
pleadings specifically demonstrating that she brought this suit based on Mason’s communications
with the government related to the Plaintiff’s care of her goats and therefore Mason’s exercise of
his rights protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Do you claim that the instant suit is based in part on your exercise of your “right of free
speech” and if so please provide the facts which lead you to formulate such a claim.
OBJECTION NO. 11
This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence because Mason has already demonstrated in his special motion to dismiss that the
Plaintiff’s claims against him are the result of his exercise of his right to petition the government
related to a matter of public concern and his right of association related to a matter of public
concern. Mason should not be required to provide each fact that would support a claim that he
exercised his right of free speech as well because it is unnecessary for Mason to prevail on his
motion to dismiss. Mason’s conclusion about whether the instant lawsuit is also based on his
exercise of his right of free speech related to a matter of public concern is irrelevant at this time.
This interrogatory also seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. What is relevant to this suit are the
Plaintiff’s numerous allegations in the complaint and other pleadings specifically demonstrating
that she brought this suit based on Mason’s communications with the government related to the
Plaintiff’s care of her goats and therefore Mason’s exercise of his rights protected by the anti-
SLAPP statute.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Please identify all occasions by date and manner and method of communication (oral or
written) during which you have initiated communications with plaintiff Nancy Burton and state
the substance of each such communication.
3
2931365_1
OBJECTION NO. 12
This interrogatory is unduly burdensome, seeks information that is equally accessible to
the Plaintiff, and is irrelevant to Mason’s exercise of rights protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18
Please identify by date and time and substance all communications you have had with
Charles DellaRocco, Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“DOAG”) animal control officer
regarding yourself, your property, events of April 30, 2020 involving plaintiff and her goats, the
complaint filed with DOAG Commissioner Bryan Hurlbert concerning the said events of April 30,
2020 and the outcome of the complaint.
OBJECTION NO. 18
This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information equally
accessible to the Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19
Please provide dates of all written and oral communications between yourself and
defendant Gibbons and Charles DellaRocco, Jeremiah Dunn, Bryan Hurlburt and DOAG staff,
other state government officeholders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches and their
staffs and the substance of each such communication and any response(s) received.
OBJECTION NO. 19
This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information equally
accessible to the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant David Philip Mason respectfully requests that his objections
to the Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories be sustained.
Defendant,
David P. Mason
By his attorneys,
________________________________________
Robert S. Hillson II (#441402)
Michael D. Riseberg (#431023)
Rubin and Rudman LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 330-7000
rhillson@rubinrudman.com
mriseberg@rubinrudman.com
4
2931365_1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert S. Hillson II, Esq. counsel for the Defendant David Mason do hereby certify that
on this 3rd day of September 2021 I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing document(s)
via e-mail to the following counsel and pro se parties of record.
Nancy Burton Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq.
154 Highland Avenue Pullman & Comley, LLC
Rowayton, CT 06853 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
(203) 313-1510 Bridgeport, CT 06601
nancyburtonct@aol.com sstafstrom@pullcom.com
James N. Tallberg, Esq. Alexander W. Ahrens
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC Melick & Porter, LLP
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B 900 Main Street South
Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Southbury, CT 06488
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com aahrens@melicklaw.com
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Jonathan E. Harding, Esq.
Kristan M. Jakiela, Esq. Matthew I. Levine, Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC AG-Environmental
65 Wethersfield Avenue 165 Capitol Ave., 5th Floor
Hartford, CT 06114-1121 Hartford, CT 06106
pnewbury@hl-law.com jonathan.harding@ct.gov
kjakiela@hl-law.com matthew.levine@ct.gov
________________________________________
Robert S. Hillson II, Esq.
5
2931365_1
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
STATE OF CONNECTICUT Docket NO.: (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON, SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET v. AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL. Defendants. September 3, 2021 DEFENDANT MASON’S SPECIFIC DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-196a, Defendant David Philip Mason (“Mason” or “Defendant”) hereby files his specific discovery objections to the Plaintiff’s proposed Interrogatories to Mason (#175.00) filed in response to Mason’s special motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (#144.00) and his memorandum in support thereof (#145.00).1 Mason hereby files the following specific discovery objections as Ordered by this Court in docket entries (#128.10) and (#171.10) wherein the Court allowed limited discovery only as to the complaints referred to in paragraph 21 of the Mason affidavit. Paragraph 21 of the Mason affidavit states: “I believe the Plaintiff has brought this suit seeking retribution for my complaints and the complaints of my neighbors, which ultimately led to an investigation and the Plaintiff’s arrest for animal cruelty due to her neglectful treatment of her animals.” Mason objects to each of the Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 7 With regard to the issues, facts, and circumstances set forth in the complaint, as amended, in this action, please identify in detail by date, location, manner and method of exercise (whether orally or in writing) and method of communication of such exercise (whether orally, by mail, by email, by social media, to the news media or any other method of communication) all instances and occasion when you have exercised your “right to petition the government” as the phrase “right 1 Mason incorporates by reference the objections of any co-defendants in response to the Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories as if set forth fully herein. 1 2931365_1 to petition the government” is used in your Special Motion to Dismiss dated June 10, 2021, and the names, positions, and addresses of the individuals and entities and agents of governmental entities and all others to whom such communications were directed. OBJECTION NO. 7 This interrogatory is overly broad, requests information equally accessible to the Plaintiff, seeks information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and seeks information that is irrelevant to Mason’s right to petition the government wherein this interrogatory requests information, if any, related to Mason’s social media accounts or communications with any news media, which are unrelated to Mason’s exercise of his right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern. The Plaintiff requests that Mason identify all instances in which he exercised his right to petition the government and also provide the names, positions, and addresses of the individuals and entities to which his communications were directed. This request is clearly unduly burdensome and likely to cause unnecessary expense and delay in hearing Mason’s special motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff is already aware of a number of instances where Mason exercised his right to petition the government, but even just one instance of Mason exercising his right to petition the government is enough to grant Mason’s special motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The fact that there were multiple instances where Mason exercised his protected right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern does not warrant discovery into each and every instance. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 With regard to the issues, facts and circumstances set forth in the complaint as amended, in this action, please disclose the exact words, language and verbiage used in each and every such communication as identified above in paragraphs 7 and 8. OBJECTION NO. 9 This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, requests information equally accessible to the Plaintiff, seeks information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and seeks information that is irrelevant to Mason’s right to petition the government wherein this interrogatory requests information, if any, related to Mason’s social media accounts or communications with any news media, which are unrelated to Mason’s exercise of his right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern. The Plaintiff also requests in Interrogatory number 9 that Mason “disclose the exact words, language and verbiage used in each and every such communication as identified in paragraphs 7 and 8.” This request is clearly unduly burdensome and likely to cause unnecessary expense and delay in hearing Mason’s special motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff is already aware of a number of instances where Mason exercised his right to petition the government, but even just one instance of Mason exercising his right to petition the government is enough to grant Mason’s special motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The fact that there were multiple instances where Mason exercised his protected right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern does not warrant discovery into each and every instance. 2 2931365_1 INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Please provide the facts which lead you to conclude that the instant suit is based on your alleged exercise of your “right to petition the government” and/or your “right of association.” OBJECTION NO. 10 This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Mason’s conclusions about whether the instant lawsuit is based on his exercise of his right to petition the government or his right of association are irrelevant to the Court’s ruling on Mason’s special motion to dismiss. Further, this interrogatory seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. What is relevant to this suit are the Plaintiff’s numerous allegations in the complaint and other pleadings specifically demonstrating that she brought this suit based on Mason’s communications with the government related to the Plaintiff’s care of her goats and therefore Mason’s exercise of his rights protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Do you claim that the instant suit is based in part on your exercise of your “right of free speech” and if so please provide the facts which lead you to formulate such a claim. OBJECTION NO. 11 This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Mason has already demonstrated in his special motion to dismiss that the Plaintiff’s claims against him are the result of his exercise of his right to petition the government related to a matter of public concern and his right of association related to a matter of public concern. Mason should not be required to provide each fact that would support a claim that he exercised his right of free speech as well because it is unnecessary for Mason to prevail on his motion to dismiss. Mason’s conclusion about whether the instant lawsuit is also based on his exercise of his right of free speech related to a matter of public concern is irrelevant at this time. This interrogatory also seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. What is relevant to this suit are the Plaintiff’s numerous allegations in the complaint and other pleadings specifically demonstrating that she brought this suit based on Mason’s communications with the government related to the Plaintiff’s care of her goats and therefore Mason’s exercise of his rights protected by the anti- SLAPP statute. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Please identify all occasions by date and manner and method of communication (oral or written) during which you have initiated communications with plaintiff Nancy Burton and state the substance of each such communication. 3 2931365_1 OBJECTION NO. 12 This interrogatory is unduly burdensome, seeks information that is equally accessible to the Plaintiff, and is irrelevant to Mason’s exercise of rights protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Please identify by date and time and substance all communications you have had with Charles DellaRocco, Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“DOAG”) animal control officer regarding yourself, your property, events of April 30, 2020 involving plaintiff and her goats, the complaint filed with DOAG Commissioner Bryan Hurlbert concerning the said events of April 30, 2020 and the outcome of the complaint. OBJECTION NO. 18 This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information equally accessible to the Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 Please provide dates of all written and oral communications between yourself and defendant Gibbons and Charles DellaRocco, Jeremiah Dunn, Bryan Hurlburt and DOAG staff, other state government officeholders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches and their staffs and the substance of each such communication and any response(s) received. OBJECTION NO. 19 This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information equally accessible to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Defendant David Philip Mason respectfully requests that his objections to the Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories be sustained. Defendant, David P. Mason By his attorneys, ________________________________________ Robert S. Hillson II (#441402) Michael D. Riseberg (#431023) Rubin and Rudman LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 330-7000 rhillson@rubinrudman.com mriseberg@rubinrudman.com 4 2931365_1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert S. Hillson II, Esq. counsel for the Defendant David Mason do hereby certify that on this 3rd day of September 2021 I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the following counsel and pro se parties of record. Nancy Burton Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq. 154 Highland Avenue Pullman & Comley, LLC Rowayton, CT 06853 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 (203) 313-1510 Bridgeport, CT 06601 nancyburtonct@aol.com sstafstrom@pullcom.com James N. Tallberg, Esq. Alexander W. Ahrens Karsten & Tallberg, LLC Melick & Porter, LLP 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B 900 Main Street South Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Southbury, CT 06488 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com aahrens@melicklaw.com Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Jonathan E. Harding, Esq. Kristan M. Jakiela, Esq. Matthew I. Levine, Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC AG-Environmental 65 Wethersfield Avenue 165 Capitol Ave., 5th Floor Hartford, CT 06114-1121 Hartford, CT 06106 pnewbury@hl-law.com jonathan.harding@ct.gov kjakiela@hl-law.com matthew.levine@ct.gov ________________________________________ Robert S. Hillson II, Esq. 5 2931365_1