Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Deirdre Deshields v. Ericka Baldwin
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (# 117)
“Practice Book § 13–29(c)(2) governs the place of [a] deposition of a defendant who is not a resident of this state. The import of [§ 13–29(c)(2) ] read as a whole is based on the rationale that a defendant should generally not be required to finance the cost of litigation against him. Thus, [a] nonresident defendant ․ may usually insist that his deposition be taken only where he resides or does business. These rules have sometimes been relaxed, however, to accommodate special circumstances of the parties.
“The court has discretion to compel a nonresident defendant to give his deposition at such other place as is fixed by order of the judicial authority. See Practice Book 13–29(c)(2). No hard rule should be set to govern when the court should exercise its discretion to order an out-of-state defendant to appear in Connecticut ․ The court in exercising its discretion must do so in a manner which accommodates the special circumstances of each case. Some of the factors it should consider are the financial circumstances of the parties, whether the plaintiff seeking to take the deposition of the out-of-state defendant offers to pay his or her travel and living expenses, whether the defendant was personally served in Connecticut with the writ and complaint while he or she was a resident and thereafter voluntarily moved out of Connecticut,1 the hardship that travel may impose on a party ․ the effectiveness of obtaining the discovery through other means such as written interrogatories or the taking of the defendant's deposition in Connecticut at the commencement of trial, and such other considerations.”
The plaintiff in the present case has not filed an objection to the protective order, and therefore has not advanced any reasons for the court to not follow the rules of practice and to compel the defendant to travel to Connecticut for her deposition. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a protective order is granted. The defendant's deposition shall take place at a location within thirty miles of the defendant's residence or within the county of her residence.
Wilson, J.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. Defendant claims that at the time of this accident she was also not a resident of the State of Connecticut, but was a resident of Orlando, Florida.. FN1. Defendant claims that at the time of this accident she was also not a resident of the State of Connecticut, but was a resident of Orlando, Florida.
Wilson, Robin L., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NNHCV116016280S
Decided: May 24, 2013
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)