150 Conn.App. 20
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Spatta contracted defendants American Classic Cars, LLC and Paoli to build a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air for cost plus $10,000; project delayed and plaintiff paid over $200,000 and alleged defects.
- Plaintiff served interrogatories and document requests; defendants missed deadlines, sought extensions, and produced largely nonresponsive or partial discovery.
- Court ordered full, good-faith discovery and imposed a $250 sanction; defendants ignored deadlines and initially failed to pay the sanction.
- After continued noncompliance, a subsequent judge entered default against defendants; defendants moved to reargue and to open/set aside the default, both denied.
- Trial court found defendants’ discovery violations willful, central to the dispute (cost records), progressive sanctions had failed, and default was proportional to prejudice to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to reargue denial of motion to open default | Court correctly denied reargument because discovery orders were clear and defendants wilfully violated them | Court erred because discovery order lacked clarity and defendants had complied before default; default disproportionate | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; orders were clear, violated, and default proportional |
| Whether discovery orders were reasonably clear | Plaintiff: requests and court orders clearly sought cost and qualification documents central to the case | Defendants: ambiguity because document existence depended on competing contract theories | Court: orders and requests were clear; defendants’ later estimate to assemble docs showed they understood requirements |
| Whether defendants in fact violated discovery orders | Plaintiff: repeated noncompliance, missed deadlines, failed to pay sanction | Defendants: claimed supplemental compliance and that some documents didn’t exist | Court: factual finding of noncompliance upheld as not clearly erroneous |
| Whether default sanction was proportional | Plaintiff: progressive sanctions failed; documents central; prejudice to plaintiff justified default | Defendants: default excessive given discovery issues and claimed compliance | Court: default proportional after deadlines, monetary sanction, and continued willful noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (sets three requirements for validating discovery sanctions: clarity of order, factual violation, and proportionality of sanction)
- Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter, 131 Conn. App. 371 (2011) (discusses factors for setting aside defaults and trial court discretion)
- Fortin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 139 Conn. App. 826 (2012) (standard of review for denial of motion to reargue is abuse of discretion)