Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff :
: COMPLEX LITIGATION
v. : DOCKET
: AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. :
Defendants : FEBRUARY 4, 2022
OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR ORDER (ENTRY NO. 285.00)
Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P.
Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State
Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) hereby object
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Entry No. 285.00). Said motion must be denied as it is not
remotely related to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for constitutional violations and State Defendants
are not in a position to accommodate the relief requested in this motion.
Plaintiff’s assertion that inspecting the goats is “[a] necessary component” of her
preparation for trial is completely without merit. (Mot. for Order, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s remaining
claim is for violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Said claim relies entirely on her ability to demonstrate that the search and seizure warrant
application, that the Department of Agriculture relied on in seizing the goats, was somehow
defective, rendering their seizure unlawful. Inspecting the goats, nearly eleven months after they
have been placed with the Department for their protection 1, will not assist Plaintiff in preparing
for trial.
1
The goats are in the care of the Department due to a finding of reasonable cause that Plaintiff abused the
goats by neglecting them and treating them cruelly in a number of ways. State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five
Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, 2021 Conn. Super. LEXIS 483, at *5-6 (Super. Apr. 9, 2021). The
goats have been placed with the Department, to protect them from Plaintiff’s cruel treatment. Providing
1
To the extent this Motion for Order can be construed as a Discovery Request, it must be
denied as this is not the proper method of obtaining discoverable evidence and the objective of
the Motion is beyond the scope of discovery. Matters which are discoverable are limited to
information that is “material to the subject matter involved in the pending action” and is
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CT Practice Book § 13-
2. In this Motion, Plaintiff baselessly alleges that State Defendants have confined the goats “in
deplorable conditions and, due to their willful disregard of and ignorance of the goats’ needs,
some of Plaintiff’s goats have suffered unnecessary and untimely deaths and excruciating,
avoidable suffering; all have suffered and continue to suffer from despair and adverse health
conditions.” (Mot. for Order, ¶ 3.) This allegation is part of a consistent narrative fabricated
from intentional misrepresentations and deceptive recitations of fact. Plaintiff concedes that her
“immediate concerns” are “regarding the health and welfare” of the goats but, without
explanation, argues that visiting the goats is also necessary for her preparation for trial. (Id. at ¶¶
7, 8.) Plaintiff’s Motion makes clear that the purpose of her request is to investigate the health
and welfare of the goats, not to advance her claim. Plaintiff’s remaining constitutional claim will
solely rely on her ability to demonstrate that the search warrant application was defective,
rendering the seizure of the goats unlawful. The goats have been in the care and custody of the
Department of Agriculture for nearly eleven months. Roughly thirty percent of the goats being
cared for were not born at the time of the execution of the warrant; thus, their inspection is
completely immaterial to her examination of the merits of the search warrant. Plaintiff’s desire
to visit the goats is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to
advance her claim of constitutional violations.
Plaintiff access to the abused goats would arguably run afoul of that court’s order and certainly is
antithetical to the intention of the court in entering that order.
2
Notably, this is not Plaintiff’s first attempt to visit the goats that she was deemed to have
neglected and treated cruelly. Beginning on March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order
(Motion to Inspect) in the Hartford Superior Court, State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats,
Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 110.00, to “inspect the conditions under which the goats
[…] are being held.” Said request was plainly not designed to discover admissible evidence; it
was meant purely to harass the agency while working to rehabilitate the abused goats. Later,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order (Second Motion to Inspect), State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five
Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 140.00, to “inspect the Large Animal Facility.”
Again, this motion did not plausibly relate to a legitimate search for admissible evidence. Both
motions to inspect were denied. State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No.
CV216139702S, Entry Nos. 110.86, 140.86. As the court, Sheridan, J., articulated in denying the
Second Motion to Inspect: “Nothing in the statutory scheme set forth in Connecticut General
Statutes §§ 22-329a and b permits an owner, after a finding of neglect and cruel treatment, to
turn the tables so to speak and commence an investigation of the manner of care and treatment
by a person, or facility, which the court has designated as a carekeeper for neglected or abused
animals. Any such effort would be contrary to the purpose of the statute. Moreover, such an
inspection will not yield any information which is relevant or material to the factual issue which
is central to these proceedings, namely, whether the animals in question were neglected or
cruelty treated BEFORE they came into the care and custody of the State.” State ex rel. Dunn v.
Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 140.86. Ignoring this ruling by the
court, Plaintiff, again, filed another Motion for Order (Third Motion to Inspect), State ex rel.
Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 207.00, to “inspect the
conditions of her goats’ illegal confinement.” Said motion, unsurprisingly, was also denied.
3
State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 207.86. Given
that Plaintiff’s constitutional claim is even further removed from facts related to the present care
of the goats, the present Motion must be denied as having no relation to the subject matter of the
present cause of action.
Finally, the goats are housed at the Large Animal Rehabilitation Center (“Center”). The
Center is located on the grounds of the York Correctional Facility in Niantic. The Center is in the
middle of the York Correctional campus, which is a secure location that requires a background
check and vetting process conducted by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) before it can be
accessed by any visitor. State Defendants are not capable of facilitating Plaintiff’s access to the
facility. Upon information and belief, on at least two occasions Plaintiff has presented herself to
the York correctional security gate and requested access from the DOC. Upon information and
belief, Plaintiff’s request for entry upon the York Correctional ground was denied by DOC
security officials. Ultimately, access for any visitor could only be granted by the DOC and
coordinating a secure procedure for this unusual request would divert valuable State resources
from both the DOC and the Department of Agriculture.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order must be denied.
4
DEFENDANTS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE
CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ___434270_____________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 434270
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
5
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered electronically to the
following counsel and self-represented parties February 4, 2022:
Nancy Burton
154 Highland Ave.
Rowayton, CT 06853
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
pnewbury@hl-law.com
Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Michael D. Riseberg
Christine N. Parise
Rubin & Rudman, LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com
CParise@rubinrudman.com
____434270_________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Commissioner of the Superior Court
6
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff : : COMPLEX LITIGATION v. : DOCKET : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. : Defendants : FEBRUARY 4, 2022 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR ORDER (ENTRY NO. 285.00) Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P. Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Entry No. 285.00). Said motion must be denied as it is not remotely related to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for constitutional violations and State Defendants are not in a position to accommodate the relief requested in this motion. Plaintiff’s assertion that inspecting the goats is “[a] necessary component” of her preparation for trial is completely without merit. (Mot. for Order, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s remaining claim is for violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Said claim relies entirely on her ability to demonstrate that the search and seizure warrant application, that the Department of Agriculture relied on in seizing the goats, was somehow defective, rendering their seizure unlawful. Inspecting the goats, nearly eleven months after they have been placed with the Department for their protection 1, will not assist Plaintiff in preparing for trial. 1 The goats are in the care of the Department due to a finding of reasonable cause that Plaintiff abused the goats by neglecting them and treating them cruelly in a number of ways. State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, 2021 Conn. Super. LEXIS 483, at *5-6 (Super. Apr. 9, 2021). The goats have been placed with the Department, to protect them from Plaintiff’s cruel treatment. Providing 1 To the extent this Motion for Order can be construed as a Discovery Request, it must be denied as this is not the proper method of obtaining discoverable evidence and the objective of the Motion is beyond the scope of discovery. Matters which are discoverable are limited to information that is “material to the subject matter involved in the pending action” and is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CT Practice Book § 13- 2. In this Motion, Plaintiff baselessly alleges that State Defendants have confined the goats “in deplorable conditions and, due to their willful disregard of and ignorance of the goats’ needs, some of Plaintiff’s goats have suffered unnecessary and untimely deaths and excruciating, avoidable suffering; all have suffered and continue to suffer from despair and adverse health conditions.” (Mot. for Order, ¶ 3.) This allegation is part of a consistent narrative fabricated from intentional misrepresentations and deceptive recitations of fact. Plaintiff concedes that her “immediate concerns” are “regarding the health and welfare” of the goats but, without explanation, argues that visiting the goats is also necessary for her preparation for trial. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.) Plaintiff’s Motion makes clear that the purpose of her request is to investigate the health and welfare of the goats, not to advance her claim. Plaintiff’s remaining constitutional claim will solely rely on her ability to demonstrate that the search warrant application was defective, rendering the seizure of the goats unlawful. The goats have been in the care and custody of the Department of Agriculture for nearly eleven months. Roughly thirty percent of the goats being cared for were not born at the time of the execution of the warrant; thus, their inspection is completely immaterial to her examination of the merits of the search warrant. Plaintiff’s desire to visit the goats is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to advance her claim of constitutional violations. Plaintiff access to the abused goats would arguably run afoul of that court’s order and certainly is antithetical to the intention of the court in entering that order. 2 Notably, this is not Plaintiff’s first attempt to visit the goats that she was deemed to have neglected and treated cruelly. Beginning on March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order (Motion to Inspect) in the Hartford Superior Court, State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 110.00, to “inspect the conditions under which the goats […] are being held.” Said request was plainly not designed to discover admissible evidence; it was meant purely to harass the agency while working to rehabilitate the abused goats. Later, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order (Second Motion to Inspect), State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 140.00, to “inspect the Large Animal Facility.” Again, this motion did not plausibly relate to a legitimate search for admissible evidence. Both motions to inspect were denied. State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry Nos. 110.86, 140.86. As the court, Sheridan, J., articulated in denying the Second Motion to Inspect: “Nothing in the statutory scheme set forth in Connecticut General Statutes §§ 22-329a and b permits an owner, after a finding of neglect and cruel treatment, to turn the tables so to speak and commence an investigation of the manner of care and treatment by a person, or facility, which the court has designated as a carekeeper for neglected or abused animals. Any such effort would be contrary to the purpose of the statute. Moreover, such an inspection will not yield any information which is relevant or material to the factual issue which is central to these proceedings, namely, whether the animals in question were neglected or cruelty treated BEFORE they came into the care and custody of the State.” State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 140.86. Ignoring this ruling by the court, Plaintiff, again, filed another Motion for Order (Third Motion to Inspect), State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 207.00, to “inspect the conditions of her goats’ illegal confinement.” Said motion, unsurprisingly, was also denied. 3 State ex rel. Dunn v. Sixty-Five Goats, Docket No. CV216139702S, Entry No. 207.86. Given that Plaintiff’s constitutional claim is even further removed from facts related to the present care of the goats, the present Motion must be denied as having no relation to the subject matter of the present cause of action. Finally, the goats are housed at the Large Animal Rehabilitation Center (“Center”). The Center is located on the grounds of the York Correctional Facility in Niantic. The Center is in the middle of the York Correctional campus, which is a secure location that requires a background check and vetting process conducted by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) before it can be accessed by any visitor. State Defendants are not capable of facilitating Plaintiff’s access to the facility. Upon information and belief, on at least two occasions Plaintiff has presented herself to the York correctional security gate and requested access from the DOC. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s request for entry upon the York Correctional ground was denied by DOC security officials. Ultimately, access for any visitor could only be granted by the DOC and coordinating a secure procedure for this unusual request would divert valuable State resources from both the DOC and the Department of Agriculture. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order must be denied. 4 DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ___434270_____________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 434270 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 5 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties February 4, 2022: Nancy Burton 154 Highland Ave. Rowayton, CT 06853 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 pnewbury@hl-law.com Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com James N. Tallberg, Esq. Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Michael D. Riseberg Christine N. Parise Rubin & Rudman, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com CParise@rubinrudman.com ____434270_________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Commissioner of the Superior Court 6