164 Conn. App. 729
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Saundra Magana (self-represented) sued Wells Fargo, ReconTrust, and Bank of America seeking injunctive relief after foreclosure and an alleged thwarted option-to-purchase; only the bank defendants remained by October 2014.
- The banks served interrogatories and document requests on October 4, 2013; Magana was granted extensions but the banks sought court-ordered compliance more than a year later.
- The trial court issued sequential orders requiring Magana to serve verified discovery responses by set deadlines or face nonsuit; Magana filed certificates asserting compliance but the banks moved for nonsuit claiming noncompliance.
- The trial court granted nonsuit on March 19, 2015, finding Magana violated its discovery orders; Magana appealed, arguing the court relied solely on the banks’ counsel representations without evidence.
- The appellate court found the record contained only competing counsel representations (Magana’s certificates versus banks’ claims) and no evidentiary proof to resolve credibility.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing so factual findings about compliance can be made before imposing sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonsuit for discovery noncompliance was proper | Magana argued the court relied on defendants’ counsel representations without evidence and she had complied | Banks argued Magana failed to comply despite prior orders and nonsuit was warranted | Reversed — court abused process by resolving competing representations without evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the discovery orders were sufficiently clear | Magana did not contest clarity of orders | Banks relied on the orders and their motions for nonsuit | Orders were clear; the dispute was over compliance, not clarity |
| Whether representations of counsel suffice as proof of noncompliance | Magana argued counsel representations are not evidence | Banks treated their filings as adequate to show noncompliance | Court cannot rely solely on counsel representations; they are not evidence |
| Whether sanction (nonsuit) was proportional without factual finding | Magana argued sanction imposed without fact-finding was improper | Banks argued sanction was appropriate given prolonged noncompliance | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to assess compliance and proportionality before sanctioning |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuccio v. Garamella, 114 Conn. App. 205 (discusses Practice Book § 13-14 sanctions range for discovery noncompliance)
- Rullo v. General Motors Corp., 208 Conn. 74 (decisions to impose discovery sanctions are within trial court discretion)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (sets three-prong test for review of discovery sanctions: clarity, violation, proportionality)
- Martin v. Liberty Bank, 46 Conn. App. 559 (holds counsel representations are not evidence)