Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV18-6041232-S : SUPERIOR COURT
KATHERINEE C. MANTILLA : J.D. OF WATERBURY
V : AT WATERBURY
DREW R MENCIO ET AL : NOVEMBER 12, 2019
MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Practice Book § 13-14, the defendant hereby moves the Court for an Order of
Compliance because the plaintiff has failed to fully respond to Standard Interrogatories and
Requests for Production.
I. FACTS
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which isalleged to have occurred on July
18, 2016. As a result of the subject accident, the plaintiff alleges to have sustained injuries resulting
in concussion, post-concussion syndrome, head pain, headaches, dizziness, nausea, neck pain,
cervical facet syndrome, cervical spondylosis, disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6, limited
cervical range of motion, right hand numbness, back pain, thoracic facet syndrome, thoracic
spondylosis, disc herniations at L4-5 and L5-S1, lumbar facet syndrome, lumbar spondylosis, and
lumbar displacement with radiculopathy. The defendant served the plaintiff with Standard
Interrogatories and Requests for Production on June 19, 2018 (#102.00); to which compliance was
filed on July 31, 2018 (#109.00).
LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM
108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308
However, due to partial compliance the defense wrote to opposing counsel on June 26, 2019
and received supplemental compliance dated July 9, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the defense filed
a Motion for Order of Compliance (#118.00). On October 28, 2019, the plaintiff then provided the
defendants with her necessary tax returns. Upon continued review of the file, the defense is still in
need of the following:
Copy of the No Fault file (New York motor vehicle accident);
Copies of the wage and employment records of all employers of the plaintiff for
three (3) years prior to the date of the incident and for all years subsequent to the
date of the incident to and including the date hereof; and
Fully completed and executed medical Authorizations (prior authorization
produced was blank and undated).
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
Practice Book § 13-14 states in pertinent part:
If any party has failed to answer interrogatories . . . or has failed to respond to requests for
production . . . the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order as the ends of justice
require.
Practice Book § 13-14
“[The] rules of discovery are designed to make a trialless a game of blindman’s bluff and
more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” Wexler
v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 188-89 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). See also Rosenberg v.
Castaneda, 38 Conn.App. 628, 632 (Conn.App. 1995); City of Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc., 7
LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM
108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308
Conn.App. 591, 600 (Conn.App. 1986); Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103,
106 (Conn.App. 1984); Quiros v. Elderhouse, Inc., 2014 WL 2255314 at *4 (Conn.Supp. Apr. 25,
2014); Davis v. Elrac, LLC, 2014 WL 2251603 at *2 (Conn.Supp. Apr. 24, 2014). “Nothing could be
more basic and necessary for the defendants to have to give them a fair chance of defending
themselves at trial.”Vanalstyne v. Town of Tolland, 2009 WL 940947 at *3 (Conn.Supp. Mar. 11,
2009).
Further, the “Practice Book mandates full broad discovery prior to trial so as to avoid trial
by ambush and allow all parties to have sufficient information to access the weaknesses and
strengths to their particular claims.” St. George v. Sanfilippo, 2009 WL 4683769 at *1 (Conn.Supp.
Nov. 12, 2009). The purpose of discovery is not only to prevent trial by ambush, but also to provide
the parties with all information needed to explore any possible settlement before trial. Sherman v.
Axelrod, 49 Conn.Supp. 265, 271 (Feb. 10, 2005).
Without this information, the defendants are at an unfair disadvantage as they will be unable
to properly evaluate and defend this claim. Moreover, any information that the defendants can
comprise and compile from the assortment of records received would not be certified by the
plaintiff as required by standard discovery. In addition, the defendants will not be able to properly
cross examine any of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses without complete disclosure. As such, the
defendants move the Court to enter an order requiring the plaintiff to fully respond to standard
discovery by a date certain.
LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM
108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants request the following:
1. That an order enter requiring the plaintiff to fully comply with standard discovery within
twenty (20) days of the Court’s order;
2. Order that failure to respond within the court’s parameters will expose the plaintiff to
Nonsuit if the matter reaches short calendar; and
3. Order any and all further relief that the Court may deem necessary.
THE DEFENDANTS,
DREW R. MENCIO
TRI-STAR SERVICE INC.
By 420166 ____
Stacey Francoline, Esq.
Law Offices of Meehan, Roberts, Turret
& Rosenbaum
108 Leigus Road, 1st Floor
Wallingford, CT 06492
Tel. # 203-294-7800
Juris # 408308
LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM
108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that all personal identifying information was redacted pursuant to
Practice Book Section 4-7. This will further certify the foregoing was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage
pre-paid or electronically delivered pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-14 on this 12th day of
November, 2019.
Attorney for Plaintiff
James K. Smith, Esq.
Ventura Law
235 Main Street, Suite 101
Danbury, CT 06810
james@venturalaw.com
420166 _____
Stacey Francoline
Commissioner of the Superior Court
LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM
108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308
Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV18-6041232-S : SUPERIOR COURT KATHERINEE C. MANTILLA : J.D. OF WATERBURY V : AT WATERBURY DREW R MENCIO ET AL : NOVEMBER 12, 2019 MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Practice Book § 13-14, the defendant hereby moves the Court for an Order of Compliance because the plaintiff has failed to fully respond to Standard Interrogatories and Requests for Production. I. FACTS This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which isalleged to have occurred on July 18, 2016. As a result of the subject accident, the plaintiff alleges to have sustained injuries resulting in concussion, post-concussion syndrome, head pain, headaches, dizziness, nausea, neck pain, cervical facet syndrome, cervical spondylosis, disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6, limited cervical range of motion, right hand numbness, back pain, thoracic facet syndrome, thoracic spondylosis, disc herniations at L4-5 and L5-S1, lumbar facet syndrome, lumbar spondylosis, and lumbar displacement with radiculopathy. The defendant served the plaintiff with Standard Interrogatories and Requests for Production on June 19, 2018 (#102.00); to which compliance was filed on July 31, 2018 (#109.00). LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM 108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308 However, due to partial compliance the defense wrote to opposing counsel on June 26, 2019 and received supplemental compliance dated July 9, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the defense filed a Motion for Order of Compliance (#118.00). On October 28, 2019, the plaintiff then provided the defendants with her necessary tax returns. Upon continued review of the file, the defense is still in need of the following: Copy of the No Fault file (New York motor vehicle accident); Copies of the wage and employment records of all employers of the plaintiff for three (3) years prior to the date of the incident and for all years subsequent to the date of the incident to and including the date hereof; and Fully completed and executed medical Authorizations (prior authorization produced was blank and undated). II. LAW AND ARGUMENT Practice Book § 13-14 states in pertinent part: If any party has failed to answer interrogatories . . . or has failed to respond to requests for production . . . the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order as the ends of justice require. Practice Book § 13-14 “[The] rules of discovery are designed to make a trialless a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168, 188-89 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). See also Rosenberg v. Castaneda, 38 Conn.App. 628, 632 (Conn.App. 1995); City of Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc., 7 LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM 108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308 Conn.App. 591, 600 (Conn.App. 1986); Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn.App. 103, 106 (Conn.App. 1984); Quiros v. Elderhouse, Inc., 2014 WL 2255314 at *4 (Conn.Supp. Apr. 25, 2014); Davis v. Elrac, LLC, 2014 WL 2251603 at *2 (Conn.Supp. Apr. 24, 2014). “Nothing could be more basic and necessary for the defendants to have to give them a fair chance of defending themselves at trial.”Vanalstyne v. Town of Tolland, 2009 WL 940947 at *3 (Conn.Supp. Mar. 11, 2009). Further, the “Practice Book mandates full broad discovery prior to trial so as to avoid trial by ambush and allow all parties to have sufficient information to access the weaknesses and strengths to their particular claims.” St. George v. Sanfilippo, 2009 WL 4683769 at *1 (Conn.Supp. Nov. 12, 2009). The purpose of discovery is not only to prevent trial by ambush, but also to provide the parties with all information needed to explore any possible settlement before trial. Sherman v. Axelrod, 49 Conn.Supp. 265, 271 (Feb. 10, 2005). Without this information, the defendants are at an unfair disadvantage as they will be unable to properly evaluate and defend this claim. Moreover, any information that the defendants can comprise and compile from the assortment of records received would not be certified by the plaintiff as required by standard discovery. In addition, the defendants will not be able to properly cross examine any of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses without complete disclosure. As such, the defendants move the Court to enter an order requiring the plaintiff to fully respond to standard discovery by a date certain. LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM 108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308 III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants request the following: 1. That an order enter requiring the plaintiff to fully comply with standard discovery within twenty (20) days of the Court’s order; 2. Order that failure to respond within the court’s parameters will expose the plaintiff to Nonsuit if the matter reaches short calendar; and 3. Order any and all further relief that the Court may deem necessary. THE DEFENDANTS, DREW R. MENCIO TRI-STAR SERVICE INC. By 420166 ____ Stacey Francoline, Esq. Law Offices of Meehan, Roberts, Turret & Rosenbaum 108 Leigus Road, 1st Floor Wallingford, CT 06492 Tel. # 203-294-7800 Juris # 408308 LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM 108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that all personal identifying information was redacted pursuant to Practice Book Section 4-7. This will further certify the foregoing was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid or electronically delivered pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-14 on this 12th day of November, 2019. Attorney for Plaintiff James K. Smith, Esq. Ventura Law 235 Main Street, Suite 101 Danbury, CT 06810 james@venturalaw.com 420166 _____ Stacey Francoline Commissioner of the Superior Court LAW OFFICES OF MEEHAN, ROBERTS, TURRET & ROSENBAUM 108 LEIGUS ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492(203) 294-7800 JURIS NO. 408308