Levine v. Hite

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** MICHELLE LEVINE v. RANDALL HITE ET AL. (AC 40626) Alvord, Prescott and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries she suffered when her automobile collided with a vehicle that was operated by the defendant R and owned by the defendant T. Prior to trial, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of certain of the plaintiff’s medical payment records. The court determined that the motion to compel was untimely in light of a scheduling order that a previous trial court had entered more than one year before, which stated that written discovery was done. The court also noted that the parties were without a jury, as half of the jurors who previously had been chosen had been excused from service on the jury. Thereafter, a different trial court entered an order that included dates for jury selection and trial, and precluded, inter alia, further continuances, motions and discov- ery without prior permission from the court. The defendants then sought reargument and reconsideration of the denial of their motion to compel, claiming, inter alia, that because the matter had been rescheduled, there was plenty of time to secure the plaintiff’s medical records. The trial court that denied the motion to compel denied the defendants’ motion for reargument and reconsideration, stating that the motion for reargu- ment and reconsideration had been filed in violation of the court order that required prior permission from the court to file additional pretrial motions. When the parties appeared for jury selection, a different judge, who had been assigned as the trial judge, granted the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance when her counsel requested a postponement for medi- cal reasons and, sua sponte, permitted the defendants to continue with discovery. The trial judge thereafter declined the plaintiff’s motion for reargument and reconsideration of his decision to allow the defendants to engage ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals