Sylvester Traylor, Administrator of the Estate of Roberta Mae Traylor et al. v. Bassam Awwa, M.D. et al. (2011)

ORDER

TRANSCRIPT COVER SHEETS

This extended (over 400 file entries) matter began in July–July 2006 as a medical malpractice wrongful death action.   Final judgment for the defendants entered on February 15, 2011.   Memorandum Of Decision. [469].  An appeal is now pending in the Appellate Court.

Sylvester Traylor, as Administrator of the Estate of Roberta Mae Traylor, is the primary plaintiff.   Roberta Mae Traylor, now deceased, was Sylvester Traylor's wife.   Sylvester Traylor, in his individual or personal capacity, is also a plaintiff asserting derivative loss of consortium claims.

All requested transcripts have been furnished to the plaintiffs.   The Official Court Reporter for the judicial district of New London has sent the electronic version of these transcripts to the Appellate Court.

Sylvester Traylor orally has asked the Official Court Reporter to change the cover page for the transcripts of all court proceedings during which he, Sylvester Traylor, in his individual or personal capacity, was pro se or self-represented.

Sylvester Traylor, represented to this court on March 7, 2011 that some 15 transcripts were needed for his appeal.   See AMENDED PLAINTIFF SYLVESTER TRAYLOR IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY REQUESTS FOR A HEARING ON THE PARTIAL DENIAL ON A FEE WAIVER DATED FEBURARY 22, 2011, March 7, 2011. [492.]  Of the 15 transcripts, Sylvester Traylor wants the cover sheets of 14 changed.   The dates of the proceedings for which he sought transcripts go back to early 2008.¹  The court believes it improper to have the Official Court Reporter, or the clerk of this court, search this oversize file to make the legal determination when (on which dates) Sylvester Traylor, in his individual or personal capacity, was self-represented.   Judicial Branch employees are encouraged, indeed required, to accommodate litigants and other members of the public.   But, due to Sylvester Traylor's unconventional in-and-out use of appearances, determining when Traylor, in his individual or personal capacity, was self-represented goes way beyond staff accommodation.   A court reporter's or monitor's listing of the attorneys and self-represented parties on a particular transcript cover sheet is hardly a definitive legally binding determination of the actual appearance status.   Determination of the appearance status on a particular date is a judicial determination which cannot be made by the Official Court Reporter or the Clerk.²

Nor does the court discern how the requested changes to the various transcript cover sheets are “material” to any of the issues on appeal.   It is well established that:  “A material fact is a fact that will make a difference in the result of the case.”  Griswold v. Stern, 126 Conn. 265, 271.  (January 25, 2011).

But of paramount concern here is the method by which Sylvester Traylor seeks to accomplish these changes.

The various transcripts are a part of the record for the appeal.   Sylvester Traylor, in his individual or personal capacity, is not the only party to the appeal.   Sylvester Traylor has unilaterally approached the Official Court Reporter demanding these changes to the cover sheets of various transcripts.   It does not appear he informed defendants or their counsel of his efforts to have the transcript cover sheets changed.   In view of Sylvester Traylor's history of similar unilateral actions, this conduct is reprehensible and cannot be condoned or allowed.

The defendants are entitled to participate in any proceedings which could lead to the correction of the record on appeal which Sylvester Traylor is attempting here.

If the record is to be corrected, Sylvester Traylor must follow proper procedures for same.   His efforts to date cannot be allowed.

The Official Court Reporter and the Clerk are not to take any action which could lead to changes to transcript cover sheets until further order of this court or the Appellate Court.

Parker, J.T.R.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In court on the record proceedings were held in this case on far more than 15 dates..  FN1. In court on the record proceedings were held in this case on far more than 15 dates.

FN2. The determination to be made involves far more than looking to the most recently filed appearance.   It would be necessary to examine the appearances of the various attorneys who have represented Sylvester Traylor herein, both “in addition to” and “in place of” appearances;  appearances of Sylvester Traylor, both “in addition to” and “in place of” appearances;  Motions to Withdraw filed by attorneys who had appeared for Sylvester Traylor, opposition to same filed by Sylvester Traylor, court action on same;  and court orders regarding hybrid representation.   The foregoing is not represented to be all-inclusive..  FN2. The determination to be made involves far more than looking to the most recently filed appearance.   It would be necessary to examine the appearances of the various attorneys who have represented Sylvester Traylor herein, both “in addition to” and “in place of” appearances;  appearances of Sylvester Traylor, both “in addition to” and “in place of” appearances;  Motions to Withdraw filed by attorneys who had appeared for Sylvester Traylor, opposition to same filed by Sylvester Traylor, court action on same;  and court orders regarding hybrid representation.   The foregoing is not represented to be all-inclusive.

Parker, Thomas F., J.T.R.