135 Conn. App. 848
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- In July 2008, Kung and Fung brought a negligence action against Deng, Gallant, and Tosti arising from a July 24, 2006 motor vehicle collision in which they were passengers.
- Deng, Gallant, and Tosti served discovery requests in August 2008; plaintiffs responded but did not provide some medical records.
- At pretrial hearings (March 24, 2010; June 9, 2010), the court ordered production of medical records from Harmony Psychological, Point Acupuncture, DCBK Family Chiropractic, and Grand Medical; plaintiffs did not produce them.
- The June 9, 2010 order required production by July 31, 2010 or dismissal for failure to comply with discovery.
- On July 30, 2010, plaintiffs sought an extension; defendants objected; after a hearing, the court denied the extension and granted dismissal for discovery noncompliance.
- On January 6, 2011, plaintiffs moved to open the dismissal under § 52-212 and Practice Book § 17-4, asserting they resided in New York and had tried to obtain records, locating some before filing the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open the judgment | Kung argued they tried to obtain records and provided what they had | Gallant and Tosti argued continued missing records prejudiced defense | No abuse of discretion; failure to comply with discovery did not show reasonable cause to open |
| Whether failure to comply with discovery records can be opened under § 52-212(a) | Plaintiffs lacked ability to obtain all records but attempted to comply | Noncompliance prejudiced defendants and lacked mistake/accident/causal reason to open | Court did not err in applying § 52-212(a) requirements and did not open judgment |
| Whether Millbrook proportionality governs whether dismissal should be opened | Question whether sanction was proportional to discovery violation | Appeal from denial of motion to open cannot revisit merits of underlying dismissal | Not reviewable on appeal from denial of motion to open; underlying merits excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Priest v. Edmonds, 295 Conn. 132 (2010) (opening judgments standard under § 52-212(a))
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (sanctions proportionality test for discovery violations)
- Conway v. Hartford, 60 Conn.App. 630 (2000) (timing of appeal limits review of underlying judgment)
- Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn.App. 590 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard for motion to open judgment)