John Sylvia v. City of West Haven (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR DEPOSITION (# 144)

This matter comes before the court on a motion for a deposition by the plaintiff, who is self-represented and currently incarcerated.   The plaintiff seeks the opportunity to conduct depositions of two witnesses, in order to obtain discovery in his lawsuit against the City of West Haven and sergeant Paul Raucci.

The plaintiff's complaint was filed on November 20, 2006 with a return date of December 5, 2006.   The plaintiff filed a notice that he served a request for admissions by the defendant on August 31, 2007.   On November 14, 2007 he filed a copy of a letter he sent to the corporation counsel for the defendant, inquiring why they had not responded to his discovery requests.   On December 12, 2007 plaintiff filed a motion for compliance with his requests for discovery and production.   On February 20, 2008 plaintiff filed a motion for default, based upon the defendant's failure to respond to his discovery requests.   On August 17, 2008 plaintiff filed another notice of request for production with the defendant.   On September 2, 2008 defendant filed a request for an extension of time to respond to the request for production.   In January and February 2009, plaintiff filed three identical motions for compliance with production.   Motion # 122 was granted by the court, Lager, J. on June 29, 2009.   The defendant filed notice of compliance on June 26, 2009.

Plaintiff's motions for a deposition commenced in September 2009.   Plaintiff filed a motion for deposition (# 130), a notice of deposition (# 131) and an application for a writ of habeas corpus (# 132);  the court denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that no event was pending.  (Silbert, J. 12/3/09.)   On December 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed two applications for subpoenas, together with an application for another writ of habeas corpus and a motion to compel the deposition (# 137).   The court, Keegan, J. denied the motion to compel the deposition for failure to comply with the practice book.

On January 30, 2010 plaintiff filed another motion for deposition (# 138), as well as on February 12, 2010 (# 139).   Motion # 144 is a photocopy of # 138.

The plaintiff seeks to depose two individuals:  Connecticut State Police Trooper Seth Mancini and West Haven police officer Usha Carr. At oral argument on June 1, 2010, the plaintiff told the court that Trooper Mancini possessed documents that plaintiff seeks.   Plaintiff also indicated that Mancini represented that he would turn over the documents pursuant to a lawful court order.

The defendant's corporation counsel indicated at oral argument that he had no objection to the plaintiff's motion for a deposition and that he would accept service for Officer Carr for the deposition.

“Our rules of practice provide guidelines to facilitate the discovery of information relevant to a pending suit.”  Sanderson v. Steve Snyder Enterprises, Inc., 196 Conn. 134, 139 (1985).  “The discovery rules are designed to facilitate trial proceedings and to make a trial less a game of blindman's [buff] and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest [practicable] extent.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Vitone v. Waterbury Hospital, 88 Conn.App. 347, 357 (2005).

Practice Book §§ 13-26 through 13-32 govern deposition practice in Connecticut.   The plaintiff has the right, under § 13-26, to conduct depositions of witnesses, in order to obtain discovery for the presentation of his case.   A subpoena duces tecum can command the deponent to produce certain items at the deposition, and the subpoena must be attached to the written notice of deposition which must be served upon all parties in the case.   Practice Book § 13-27(a).   Although documents produced for inspection during the examination may be inspected and copied by any party, Practice Book § 13-30(f), the person to be deposed may file objections to the inspection or copying, and if such objection is made the documents may not be inspected or copied except pursuant to a court order.  Practice Book § 13-28(d).  Opposing counsel have the right to attend the deposition and cross-examine the deponent under Practice Book § 13-30.

At oral argument, the plaintiff claimed that, at or near the time he was released from state incarceration, the West Haven police department received information from the Department of Corrections that was then allegedly used by Sgt. Raucci to defame him in written materials disseminated within the city of West Haven.   The plaintiff refers to the documents allegedly misused to defame him as “reentry furlough 98 packet of release information.”

The plaintiff argued that Trooper Mancini has possession of and access to certain department of corrections documents that will bear out his allegation that the West Haven police department received or possessed his DOC release information.   The plaintiff also stated that Mancini will produce these records upon “lawful request.”   The court finds that it is reasonably probable that evidence outside the record will be required and grants the request for a subpoena to issue requiring Mancini's presence for a deposition and commanding him to bring the documents that plaintiff seeks.

The plaintiff has also argued that West Haven police officer Usha Carr possesses information related to his claim that Sergeant Raucci disseminated defamatory information about him.   With respect to Carr, the plaintiff did not request that he be ordered to bring written material with him, nor did any subpoena request that he filed with the court reference written material.   The court finds that it is reasonably probable that evidence outside the record will be required and grants the request to depose Carr and for the issuance of a subpoena to compel his attendance.

The court's granting of a deposition, however, is not a license to conduct a fishing expedition.   Allowing these depositions, given the limited areas of inquiry of only two individuals, would not be permission for a fishing expedition but merely recognition that the discovery request is being made in good faith.   However, the court feels that some safeguards are necessary for purposes of relevancy and materiality, as well as to ensure that the deposition is used for the purpose granted.   Therefore, the court will limit the questions put to witnesses to the existence of the documents to which plaintiff refers, and the witness' knowledge of the events in question, that are the subject of plaintiff's action.

The deposition shall take place at the New Haven Superior Court, 235 Church Street, New Haven in courtroom 5E at 10:00 a.m. on July 14, 2010.   A subpoena shall issue for Trooper Seth Mancini of the Connecticut State Police, directing him to bring, as requested by the plaintiff, “file 06-628” and any other material pertinent to the plaintiff's suit against the City of West Haven and Sergeant Raucci.   A second subpoena shall issue for West Haven police Officer Usha Carr. The corporation counsel for the defendant represented to the court that the office would accept service of the subpoena for Carr.

The remaining issue is the procedure for the deposition, namely the method to be used.   Under Practice Book rule 13-30(a), the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken “shall put the deponent on oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under the officer's direction, record the testimony of the deponent.”   Because the deposition will take place before the court, the court will ensure that the recording of the testimony occurs.   The cost of the service of the subpoenas shall be at the expense of the judicial branch.   Should the plaintiff prevail in his action for money damages, he is ordered to reimburse the judicial branch for all costs related to this order.

Accordingly, with the above provisions and in this limited scenario, the motion for a deposition is granted.

Maureen M. Keegan

Keegan, Maureen M., J.