Duart v. Department of Correction
34 A.3d 343
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Duart sued the Department of Correction for gender, sexual orientation, and retaliation discrimination; trial occurred July 2004.
- Duart alleged discovery misconduct: an anonymous note about a relationship, Osten and Jackson complaints, and Osten investigation developments were not produced.
- The trial court assumed misconduct occurred but deemed undisclosed items cumulative and not likely to change the result.
- Appellate Court affirmed, applying a Varley-based standard (fourth prong) for relief seeking a new trial on fraud discovery grounds.
- This Supreme Court certified appeal addressed whether Varley’s standard (requiring a different trial result) governs discovery misconduct; majority reframes to a Brady-like reasonable probability standard.
- Dissent would overrule Varley entirely and adopt a presumption framework shifting burden to the noncompliant party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Varley governs discovery misconduct motions | Duart argues Varley should not apply to discovery misconduct | DOC argues Varley applies to discovery misconduct as fraud-like relief | Varley applies, rearticulated for discovery misconduct |
| What standard governs the fourth prong for discovery misconduct | Duart seeks Anderson/First Circuit approach or different rule | DOC supports Varley-based reform aligning with Brady-style standard | Court adopts a reasonable probability standard, not substantial likelihood |
| Whether federal Anderson v. Cryovac precedent should govern | Duart urges Anderson-like burden for misconduct | DOC argues Connecticut common law controls; avoid Anderson | Connecticut common law controls; do not adopt Anderson |
| Whether undisclosed items could have changed outcome | Undisclosed items were germane and not cumulative; could affect result | Items were cumulative or not material to the verdict | Record supports lack of reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Varley v. Varley, 180 Conn. 1 (1980) (fourth-prong requires a likely different result)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process; 'different result' via reasonable probability)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable probability standard for material evidence)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (proposed different standard for misconduct; rejected here)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (discovery duties; burden on wrongdoer to show harmlessness)
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (1991) (heightened disclosure duty in marital dissolution contexts)