Teodoro v. City of Bristol, 184 Conn. App. 363

On Jan 7, 2013, Brianna (minor) was injured practicing a cheerleading "ladder stunt" supervised by coach Sophia Bayne; plaintiff (Dawn Teodoro) sued City of Bristol, Board of Education, and Bayne for negligence.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified governmental immunity; plaintiff opposed and submitted exhibits including excerpts from certified deposition transcripts of Brianna and Bayne.
Both parties filed deposition excerpts that included the transcript cover page, the court reporter’s certification page, and the deponent’s certification page; defendants later filed an additional excerpt from Brianna’s deposition.
At oral argument the trial court sua sponte refused to consider deposition excerpts as unauthenticated (requiring a separate affidavit/certification for each excerpt) and also declined to consider plaintiff’s unauthorized surreply; defendants were allowed to file a surreply.
Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on governmental immunity grounds without considering the deposition excerpts or the surreply exhibits; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excerpts from certified deposition transcripts must be separately certified (or accompanied by affidavit) to be considered on summary judgment	Excerpts accompanied by the transcript cover, court reporter’s certification page, and deponent’s certification sufficiently authenticate the excerpts under Practice Book §17-45 and §17-46	Court required separate certification/affidavit for each excerpt; without it excerpts are unauthenticated and inadmissible	Court held the certification page from the original transcript plus relevant pages is sufficient to authenticate excerpts for summary judgment purposes; trial court erred in excluding them
Whether the trial court abused discretion by not considering the parties’ surreply briefs (plaintiff’s filed without permission; defendant’s filed with permission)	Plaintiff argued the court agreed to consider surreplies at argument	Defendants relied on Practice Book §11-10 that surreplies require judicial permission and argued the court could decline to consider them	Court concluded it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the surreply briefs because Practice Book bars surreplies without permission

Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (establishes standard for appellate review of summary judgment and burdens of movant/nonmovant)
New Haven v. Pantani, 89 Conn. App. 675 (authentication requires preliminary showing of genuineness for documents on summary judgment)
Gianetti v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, 111 Conn. App. 68 (documents supporting summary judgment must be authenticated; affidavit or certified copy are ways to authenticate)
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 295 Conn. 94 (interpretation of Practice Book provisions reviewed plenarily)
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 433 (court should allow supplementation to promote speedy, economical disposition absent prejudice)
Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 (identifiable plaintiff exception to governmental immunity—clarifies narrow application)
Edgerton v. Clinton, 311 Conn. 217 (limits on identifiable plaintiff exception; discussion of class exceptions)
Jahn v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. App. 652 (student athletic activity and public nature of school supervision)
Barlow v. Palmer, 96 Conn. App. 88 (discusses admission of uncertified depositions when no objection; review standard)