Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772

Yeager sues Alvarez for injuries from a 2006 rear-end collision, alleging serious and permanent back injuries and related medical expenses.
During pretrial discovery, interrogatories 6 (last treatment) and 17 (itemized expenses) were propounded; Yeager answered Aug. 8, 2007, and disclosed some medical records, including Mintz’s March 5, 2007 report.
In Aug. 2007 Yeager underwent two surgeries (discography and plasma disc decompression) on Aug. 29, 2007; she did not update her response to interrogatory 6 to reflect the Aug. 2007 surgeries.
On Dec. 3, 2007 Yeager made a $300,000 offer of compromise under § 52-192a; defendants did not accept within the 30-day statutory period.
In Feb. 2008 Yeager disclosed Mintz’s Aug. 29, 2007 surgery more fully; in Oct. 2008 defendants moved to extend time or strike the offer for failure to disclose under Practice Book § 13-15, arguing prejudice and confusion about Mintz’s surgery.
The trial court struck the offer of compromise as a discovery sanction, the jury returned a verdict for Yeager ($1,380,240), and the court denied posttrial interest; Yeager appealed, challenging the strike and inability to award § 52-192a interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had authority to strike an offer of compromise from the record	Yeager contends the court lacked authority to strike the offer under discovery sanctions	Alvarez contends the court had inherent power to sanction and strike the offer	Authority exists, but strike was abuse of discretion
Whether striking the offer conflicts with § 52-192a’s mandatory interest provision	Strike contradicts the statute requiring interest if conditions are met	Strike is permissible as a discovery sanction even with § 52-192a in play	Sanction permissible; no conflict, as no valid offer remained for the court to consider under § 52-192a
Whether the sanction was properly tailored and proportional to the discovery violation	Strike was excessive given lack of intentional misconduct and limited prejudice	Sanction appropriate to deter noncompliance and preserve discovery process	Sanction was an abuse of discretion; not proportional given lack of bad faith or clear prejudice
Whether the discovery violation and its sanction were adequately analyzed under the Millbrook framework	Trial court misapplied Millbrook three-prong test and mis-assessed prejudice	Sanction appropriately pursued under the court’s sanctioning authority	Millbrook framework applied; court erred in weighing prejudice and disclosing facts; overall abuse of discretion

Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (three-prong framework for sanctions: clarity, violation, proportionality)
State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501 (1974) (courts have inherent power to regulate proceedings and sanctions)
Mulrooney v. Wambolt, 215 Conn. 211 (1990) (discovery sanctions to impose reasonable bounds and order on discovery)
Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73 (2003) (recognizes proportionality considerations in sanctions; continuing duty to disclose)
DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (2010) (statutory interest under § 52-192a is ministerial for posttrial motion; policy favoring settlements)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (2008) (purpose of ministerial record examination under § 52-192a)
Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296 (2002) (examples of sanctions and discovery misconduct in context of proportionality)