Motion to Stay Discovery in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Stay Discovery?

Background

“It is well within the court's discretion to impose a stay of discovery as justice requires.” (Wilcox v. Webster Ins., CV-07-5010093S, 2008 WL 253054, *2 [Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2008.])

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Connecticut Practice Book § 13-5 provides, in pertinent part:

“Upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

that the discovery not be had;
that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters....”

(Wilcox, at *7-8; Conn. P.B. § 13-5 [2015].)

“The rules of practice are to be liberally interpreted so as to advance justice.” (Id.)

‘Good Cause’ Defined

“Good cause has been defined as a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” (Vance v. Smith, Docket No. CV-04- 4000491, 2006 WL 2730299, *1 [Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2006].)

“A finding of good cause must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements.” (Sarfaty v. PNN Enterprises, Inc., Docket No. CV-02-0280255, 2004 WL 1052340, *1 [Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2004]; see also Ritchie v. Nyfix, Inc., Docket No. CV-06-4009324, 2007 WL 806240 [Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 22, 2007] [granting motion to stay discovery until resolution of the pending motion to strike].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

It is well settled that “[t]he granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the court.” (Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy (1983) 190 Conn. 48, 57.)

That discretion includes the use of protective orders to limit the extent of discovery. (See Peatie v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 112 Conn.App. 8, 14.)

A court's discovery related orders are “subject to reversal only if such an order constitutes an abuse of that discretion.... [I]t is only in rare instances that the trial court's decision will be disturbed.” (Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc. (2003) 265 Conn. 1, 7; Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bertrand (2013) 140 Conn. App. 646.)

The Court’s Decision

When good cause exists, Connecticut Superior Courts will grant motions to stay discovery pending resolution of various motions that could be dispositive of the underlying claims. (See generally Kelly v. Albertsen (2009) 114 Conn. App. 600, 608 ; Ritchie v. Nyfix, Inc., Docket No. CV-06-4009324, 2007 WL 806240 [Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 22, 2007].)

In Kelly, the court stayed discovery pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. The court stated, “allowing the plaintiff to conduct discovery prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss would [be] inconsistent with the policy that once the issue of subject matter jurisdiction has been raised, it must be decided immediately and before any other action in the case is taken.” (Id. at 607.)

Documents for Motion to Stay Discovery in Connecticut

Sort By

STEINER, MARK S. v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT document preview

OBJECTION TO MOTION Objection to Motion for Stay (Entry No. 108.00)

60 pages

DOCKET NO. HHD-CV-24-6181899-S : SUPERIOR COURT MARK S. STEINER : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD VS. : STATE OF CONNECTICUT : MAY 2, 2024 OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STAY The plaintiff, Mark S. Steiner, hereby objects to the motion to stay filed by the defendant, St…