Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GARY SESSION Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF NEW HAVEN, STEPHEN COPPOLA & EDWIN RODRIGUEZ Defendants.

: : : : : : : :

CIV NO. 3:03CV00943 (AWT)

JUNE 21, 2006

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS The defendant City of New Haven ("City") hereby objects to the plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Counsel for the defendant City adopts Part I (entitled "Facts") of the defendant Stephen Coppola and Edwin Rodriguez's Objection to Motions to Compel dated June 19, 2006. The undersigned counsel was assigned to the case in early 2005 after Attorney Martin Echter initially represented the defendant City and Attorney Echter was the sole attorney assigned to the case. Corporation Counsel. Attorney Echter no longer works in the Office of

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 2 of 6

II.

ARGUMENT A. Counsel for the defendant City made a diligent search within the NHDPS after the Judge's order on May 10, 2006.

After the telephone conference on May 10, 2006, the undersigned counsel went to the New Haven Department of Police Service (NHDPS) to inquire about what materials the Department had regarding the Anthony Lucky investigation. The undersigned

counsel had access to the Records Room and the Property Room and physically searched materials related to the Lucky investigation. There are very few materials left in either room at the NHDPS. After speaking with Attorney Mayer to report the result of the search in the NHDPS, it appeared that Attorney Mayer had almost all of the materials related to the Lucky investigation that are currently at the NHDPS. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that she needed further autopsy reports and unredacted statements, which the defendant can provide. B. Response to Plaintiff's Selected Interrogatories and Requests for Production

The defendant City responds to the selected plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production as listed in his Motion to Compel.

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 3 of 6

Interrogatory #2-3. The plaintiff expects the defendant City, in essence, to ask hundreds of NHDPS employees if they know and/or can identify the plaintiff. Interrogatories #2 and #3 are vague and oppressive. objection to Interrogatories #2 and #3. Interrogatory #7. As stated above, counsel for the defendant City searched the The defendant maintains its

NHDPS for materials in the Lucky investigation. Counsel for the defendant City did not find phone logs or notes relative to the Lucky investigation. Interrogatory #11. to the plaintiff. Interrogatory #31 As stated above, counsel for the defendant City searched the Counsel for the defendant City will provide the general orders

NHDPS for materials in the Lucky investigation. Request for Production No. 2 As stated above, counsel for the defendant City searched the NHDPS for materials in the Lucky investigation. Counsel for the defendant did not discover any tapes. Request for Production No. 5 photographs at the plaintiff's expense. Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 8 As to the entire personnel files and internal affairs files for the defendants Coppola and Rodriguez, counsel for the defendant City Counsel for the defendant City can provide color

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 4 of 6

objects to their disclosure as the request is overbroad and is likely to disclose irrelevant information. However, counsel for the defendant City would supply the files to the Court for an in-camera review to ascertain if there are relevant documents in the files. Request for Production No. 7 As stated above, counsel for the defendant City

searched the NHDPS for materials in the Lucky investigation. Whatever is left in the Lucky investigation has been provided with the exception of more autopsy reports and unredacted statements. Explanation why all evidence was destroyed on March 5, 2002. Counsel for the defendant City does not know why evidence was destroyed. Besides the orders from Judge Richard Robinson of the Connecticut Superior Court authorizing the destruction of certain material, there is no further written documentation explaining the destruction of evidence. C. The Motion for Sanctions should be denied.

The defendant City has provided extensive discovery to the plaintiff. There is no reason why the plaintiff could not depose the defendants Coppola and Rodriguez months ago before attempting to depose several police officers who are not parties to this litigation. The defendants Coppola and Rodriguez were directly involved in the Lucky investigation, not the entire NHDPS.

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 5 of 6

III.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the defendant City of New Haven respectfully objects to

the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. THE DEFENDANT CITY OF NEW HAVEN

BY:/s/______________________ Jonathan H. Beamon Assistant Corporation Counsel 165 Church Street, 4th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Phone: (203) 946-7966 Fax: (203) 946-7942 Federal Bar No. ct22937 E-mail: [email protected]

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT

Document 60

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Objection to Motion to Compel and for Sanctions was mailed on June 21, 2006 to the following counsel of record, to wit: Karen Mayer, Esq. Philip Russell, P.C. 71 Lewis Street Greenwich, CT 06830 Stephanie S. Baier, Esq. Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, P.C. P.O. Box 1684 New Haven, CT 06507-1684 /s/________________________ Jonathan H. Beamon Assistant Corporation Counsel

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL · CITY OF NEW HAVEN 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-7942 · Juris No. 42715