Motion,Ex Parte: BURTON,NANCY v. MASON,DAVID PHILIP

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                3/29/2022 8:40 PM FROM: Staples TO: +12035964032 Pp. 3

SUPERIOR COURT
WATERBURY J.D.
MAR 29 2022
NO, X0G-UWY-CV-21-5028294-S CLERK’S OFFICE
NANCY BURTON, : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff :
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

WATERBURY

v. : AT WATERBURY

DAVID PHILIP MASON, BT AL
MARCH 29, 2022

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE ATTORNEY.
JOSEPH QUINN FROM PROVIDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO DEPONENT

The undersigned objects to Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude him from representing Will
Haskell at the deposition Plaintiff has noticed for March 30, 2022. Will Haskell is a State
Senator, acting in that capacity at all times material to this issue.

First, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has standing to contest the representation of a non-
party deponent by a government attorney. [n a sexual harassment lawsuit in New York, the
plaintiff moved to disqualify the representation of the defendant, a higher-ranking military
member, by the attorney general. The court found the plaintiff lacked standing:

"Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has been aggrieved in any way different in
kind and degree from the community generally by the Attorney-General's
representation of defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff would lack standing to
commence such a proceeding had he attempted to do so. Zaccaro v Parker, 169 Misc.
2d 266, 268-269, 645 N.Y.S. 2d 985, 987-988, 1996 N.Y. Misc, LEXIS 215, 5-6.

Further, assuming arguendo that the Plaintiff has standing to attempt to preclude the
representation of a non-party deponent, the motion is without merit. Sen. Haskell has waived
service of the subpoena and will attend the deposition on March 30, 2022. The Plaintiff, in her
application for said subpoena, wrote that she believes Sen, Haskell "played an active role in
communications with some or all of the defendants resulting in formulation of plans to seize
the goats, which seizure constitutes the primary focus of this litigation."

Further, she believes he will "testify as to what he observed with regard to Plaintiff and
her goats and when and where he made such observations and how and when he communicated
such observations to others.”

To the extent Sen. Haskell communicated with any of the defendants or made any
observations about the Plaintiff and her goats, he only undertook such actions in fulfillment of3/29/2022

8:40 PM FROM: Staples TO: +12035964032 Pp. 4

his duties as the State Senator for the 26th District, which includes the Town of Redding. Some
of the Defendants in this matter are residents of Redding and thereby his constituents. The
other defendants, who are public officials, are individuals whose professional duties are
relevant to the "primary focus of this litigation." They are the specific persons to whom an
elected official would look to assist these constituents with these specific concerns,

The Greenburg case cited by the Plaintiff is inapposite; it upholds the Constitutional
speech or debate right of a Delegate to the Virginia General Assembly to refrain, during a
deposition, from answering questions about his motivation in supporting a piece of legislation,
Article Third, Section 15 of The Constitution Of The State Of Connecticut is nearly identical to
the Virginia clause. The Plaintiff argues that since the subject matter of her case is not
legislation, Sen. Haskell is not due the representation of government counsel. She distinguishes
legislative duties, which are protected from inquiry by the speech or debate clause. But she
must acknowledge, as Greenburg does, that assisting constituents in their dealings with
executive agencies is another aspect of the duties of a state legislator. The communications the
Plaintiff indicates she will ask Sen. Haskell about were undertaken by him precisely because he
is an elected official.

The undersigned works of counsel in the legal department of the Senate Democratic
Caucus, It has long been customary for the legislative caucuses to have caucus counsel
represent their members in a broad range of matters involving their public duties, including but
not limited to, with the Freedom of Information Commission, the Office of State Ethics, the
State Elections Enforcement Commission, Federal and State investigative and legal officials,
local and municipal agencies, and at depositions in pending litigation,

NON PARTY DEPONENT
WILL HASKELL

BAS
Goséph P. Guifin, Jr.
Juris No. 101439

Of Counsel

Senate Democrats
Legislative Office Building
Room 3300

Hartford, CT 06106

Tel: (860) 240 8640

Fax: (860) 240 0208
Joe.Quinn@cga.ct.gov

BY:3/29/2022 8:40 PM FROM: Staples TO: +12035964032 P.

IFICATION

Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served via email or mailed, first class
postage prepaid, this 29th day of March, 2022 to:

Nancy Burton

147 Cross Highway

Redding, CT 06896

Email: NancyBurtonCT@aol.com

Philip Miller, AAG

165 Capitol Ave, 5" Flr
Hartford, CT 06106
Email: Phil.Miller@ct.gov

Matthew Levine, AAG

Jonathan Harding, AAG

165 Capitol Avenue, 5" Flr
Hartford CT 06106

Email: Matthew.Levine@ct.gov
Email: Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov

James Tallberg, Esq.

Karsten & Tallberg

500 Enterprise Drive,

Suite 48

Rocky Hill CT 06067

Email: JTallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
Email: kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com

Philip Newbury, Esq.
Howd & Ludorf LLC
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford CT 06114

Michael Riseberg, Esq.

53 State Street

Boston MA 02109

Email: MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com
Email: CParise@rubinrudman.com
Email: DStanhill@rubinrudman.com3/29/2022 8:40 PM FROM: Staples TO: +12035964032 Pp.

Steven F, Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley

850 Main Street

Bridgeport CT 06601

Email: sstafstrom@pullcom.com

Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLP

900 Main Street South
Southport CT 06488

Email: aahrens@melicklaw.com

LE P, ee Jr.

Of Counsel, Senate Democrats