188 Conn. App. 228
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Six plaintiffs (emergency medical responders) sued American Medical Response of Connecticut in 2012 for promissory estoppel; a related 2016 antitrust action was later consolidated.
- Plaintiffs repeatedly missed discovery deadlines in 2017; the court ordered production by July 7, 2017 and depositions at plaintiffs’ counsel’s office on July 17–18, 2017.
- On July 17, defendant attended depositions with its corporate representative, William Schietinger; plaintiffs’ counsel objected, then asserted (on the record) that Schietinger was a trespasser on counsel’s property.
- After one completed deposition (MacCalla) and during a second (Yurksaitis), defendant’s counsel suspended the remaining depositions and left when counsel persisted in the trespass assertion.
- Defendant moved for nonsuit/default and dismissal (seeking sanctions) as to five plaintiffs (not MacCalla). The trial court dismissed the 2012 case as to all plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed dismissal for five plaintiffs but reversed as to MacCalla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could sua sponte dismiss MacCalla even though defendant did not seek sanctions against him | MacCalla complied with discovery and was not named in motion; dismissal as to him was improper | Defendant conceded it was not seeking sanctions against MacCalla and had completed his deposition | Reversed as to MacCalla; sua sponte dismissal was error |
| Whether dismissal of the other five plaintiffs was a proportional sanction for discovery misconduct | Dismissal was disproportionate; conduct stemmed from counsel’s mistaken good‑faith belief about notice requirement | Plaintiffs repeatedly violated discovery orders and counsel’s conduct was contumacious; dismissal appropriate | Affirmed dismissal for the five plaintiffs as not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether counsel’s labeling of defendant’s rep as a ‘trespasser’ justified lesser sanctions or required court intervention before dismissal | Plaintiffs: objection preserved; concern about intimidation justified conduct | Defendant: accusation was unprofessional, disregarded Practice Book and court authority; appropriate to seek sanctions | Court found counsel’s conduct unprofessional and that clients had been given ample time; dismissal was within discretion |
| Whether prior notice was required for a party’s representative attending an in‑person deposition | Plaintiffs argued notice was required and failure justified action | Defendant maintained notice not required for in‑person attendance under Practice Book | Practice Book did not require prior notice for in‑person attendance; plaintiffs’ trespass claim lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Emerick v. Glastonbury, 177 Conn. App. 701 (Conn. App. 2017) (dismissal may be appropriate where party shows deliberate, contumacious disregard for court authority)
- Herrick v. Monkey Farm Cafe, LLC, 163 Conn. App. 45 (Conn. App. 2016) (dismissal disproportionate where only counsel was at fault and no finding of willfulness)
- Thode v. Thode, 190 Conn. 694 (Conn. 1983) (attorney is client’s agent; attorney’s knowledge imputed to client)
- Faile v. Stratford, 177 Conn. App. 183 (Conn. App. 2017) (court abused discretion in dismissing without finding willful disregard of orders)
- Sousa v. Sousa, 173 Conn. App. 755 (Conn. App. 2017) (attorney’s actions and knowledge imputed to client)
- Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn. App. 22 (Conn. App. 2018) (standard of review for discovery sanctions: clarity of order (de novo), violation (clearly erroneous), proportionality (abuse of discretion))