189 Conn. App. 281
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Levine sued Hite and Tanya Hite for personal injuries from a 2010 car collision; case filed in 2012 and set for trial in January 2017 after extensive pretrial proceedings.
- Defendants moved (Jan 6, 2017) to compel additional medical records after receiving a Blue Cross/Blue Shield printout; Judge Shapiro denied the motion as untimely given prior scheduling orders stating written discovery was done.
- Judge Sheridan issued a firm rescheduling order (Jan 20, 2017) forbidding additional pretrial motions or discovery without prior court permission; defendants later sought reconsideration but were denied for violating Sheridan’s order.
- At a March 16, 2017 hearing, Judge Noble granted a six–eight week continuance for plaintiff’s counsel’s medical reasons and, sua sponte, allowed defendants to reopen discovery; plaintiff’s motion to reargue that decision was denied.
- Judge Epstein ordered production of specified medical records by May 2, 2017; plaintiff did not comply. Judge Peck first denied a nonsuit without prejudice, ordered compliance by May 30, 2017, and ultimately entered a nonsuit for willful, repeated failure to comply with three discovery orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Noble violated Levine’s due process / law‑of‑the‑case by sua sponte allowing additional discovery | Noble acted without notice; Shapiro’s prior denial and Sheridan’s order were the law of the case so reopening discovery was improper | Change in circumstances (lengthy continuance) justified reconsideration; case management discretion supports reopening discovery | Court affirmed: Noble did not violate due process; reopening discovery was a proper case‑management decision and law‑of‑the‑case did not bar reconsideration given changed circumstances |
| Whether a nonsuit was an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders | Nonsuit was disproportionate; Levine sought appellate review instead of compliance and did not show willful contempt | Plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with clear orders from three judges; less severe sanctions insufficient to vindicate court authority | Court affirmed: orders were clear, violation was established, and nonsuit was proportional given persistent, willful refusal to comply |
| Whether Judge Peck abused discretion by ruling on defendants’ motion for judgment before considering plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel | Plaintiff argued court should have heard her sanctions motion first | Court management of motion sequencing is discretionary and no authority required a different order | Court affirmed: sequencing was proper case management and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813 (2003) (deference to trial court case‑management decisions)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (three‑part test for discovery sanctions: clarity, violation, proportionality)
- Blinkoff v. O & G Industries, Inc., 89 Conn. App. 251 (2005) (dismissal/nonsuit as last‑resort sanction; proportionality and deliberate disregard standard)
- Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 (1982) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine; applicability when no new/overriding circumstances)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 55 Conn. App. 326 (1999) (flexibility of law‑of‑the‑case where discretion involved)
- Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., 259 Conn. 114 (2002) (one judge may revisit interlocutory rulings of another)
- Herrick v. Monkey Farm Cafe, LLC, 163 Conn. App. 45 (2016) (examples of conduct warranting severe sanctions)
- Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty‑Four, Inc., 230 Conn. 641 (1994) (duty to obey court orders even if later held unwarranted)