Preview
DOCKET NO: FBT-CV22-6118195-S : SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, ADMIN : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
OF THE EST. OF NYAIR NIXON :
V. : AT BRIDGEPORT
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL : MARCH 14, 2024
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
To the Honorable Barry K. Stevens, Judge Trial Referee
Pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5, the defendants, City of Bridgeport and
Lisa Morrissey, respectfully move to stay discovery in this matter pending the
disposition of the defendants’ Motion to Strike (#169.00).
In the early morning hours of September 27, 2020, Nyair Nixon was shot
and killed at the Keystone Club, a saloon on Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, CT.
The assailant was arrested and is being prosecuted for murder. State v. Charles
Lee Young, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, FBT-CR23-0353504-T.
The administrator of Nixon’s estate has sued the City of Bridgeport and its former
Health Director, Lisa Morrissey, in a 24-count complaint (fifteen counts of which
are against the City and Morrissey, who is now with the State Department of
Health). On February 20, 2024, the City and Morrissey filed a motion to strike all
fifteen counts against them (#164.00), and a Revised Motion to Strike on
February 28, 2024 (#169.00).
On March 1, 2024, the plaintiff served 98 requests for admissions on the
City of Bridgeport, 62 requests for admissions on Morrissey, 51 non-standard
interrogatories to the City of Bridgeport (requiring that it meet and communicate
with numerous non-party individuals) and production requests requiring the City
1
to produce voluminous documents, including Police and Health Department
documents going back ten years.
“In the absence of a statutory mandate, the granting of an application or a
motion for a stay of an action or proceeding is addressed to the discretion of the
trial court. . . . [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be
done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance.” (Emphasis added.) Lee v. Harlow, Adams &
Friedman, P.C., 116 Conn. App. 289, 311-12 (2009). Practice Book § 13-5
provides in 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: (1) that the
discovery not be had. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
One Connecticut court, borrowing a federal standard, has held: “In making
[the] determination [to stay a matter], the court should balance: (1) the private
interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as
balanced against the prejudice of the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests
of and burden on the defendant; (3) the convenience to the courts; (4) the
interest of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.”
Wilcox v. Webster Ins., 2008 WL 253054, at *4 (Conn. Super.), quoting Twenty
First Century Corp. v. LaBianca, 801 F.Sup 1007, 1010 (E.D.N.Y. September 25,
2
1992); accord, Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd. v. Democratic Socialist Republic of
Sri Lanka, 2023 WL 7180683, at *4 (SDNY). Application of this test strongly
militates in favor of a stay of discovery.
First, the plaintiff has shown a limited interest in proceeding expeditiously
with this case. He has had to go through no less than four revised complaints
over the past year and is still in the pleading stage of this case. The plaintiff
himself is seeking extensions of time to respond to the defendants’ discovery
requests and motion to strike. (Pleadings # 172.00, 178.00) Moreover, the
plaintiff can incur no prejudice by a delay of discovery. It is a tragic fact that the
plaintiff’s decedent is deceased, and the claims the plaintiff has asserted against
the City and its former Health Director plainly lack merit. They cannot be
resurrected by repleading or by discovery.
“[A] court should also consider the strength of the dispositive motion that is
the basis of the discovery stay application.” Spencer Trask Software and Info.
Serv.s, LLC v. RPOST Int'l Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y.2002); see Ritchie
v. Nyfix, Inc., 2007 WL 806240, at *1 (Conn. Super., Nadeau, J.) (discovery
stayed pending disposition of dispositive motion); Cuartero v. United States, 2006
WL 3190521*1-*2 (D.Conn.2006) (Martinez, M., J.) (granting defendant's motion
to stay discovery pending resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss). It is
respectfully submitted that this court is likely to grant that motion as to all counts.
The plaintiff’s decedent was murdered at a private saloon. Under
Connecticut law, the City had no duty to protect him from his murderer, and no
exception to that rule exists here. See Murdock v. Croughwell, 268 Conn. 559,
3
566 (2004) (“there generally is no duty that obligates one party to aid or to protect
another party.”).1 If that were not enough, the defendants actually closed down
the Keystone Club a month before Nixon was murdered. See Exhibit A. It was
reopened only after its violations were remedied.
Second, the burden on and prejudice to the defendants is very
substantial. “In determining whether good cause exists for a stay of discovery, the
court should consider several factors, including the breadth of the discovery
sought, the burden of responding to it. . . .” Cuartero v. United States, supra,
2006 WL 3190521, at *1. The plaintiff’s various discovery requests are enormous
and will consume an inordinate expenditure of time to interview the requested
witnesses, some of whom are no longer with the City, to attempt good faith
compliance with and object to the many discovery requests that are patently
frivolous and unduly burdensome. Those discovery requests are made Exhibit B
hereto.
For example, the plaintiff has submitted 98 requests for admissions to the
City of Bridgeport. The plaintiff has also submitted interrogatories that would
require these defendants to “identify all individuals with knowledge of the
allegations in the [24 count Fourth Revised] Complaint.” (IRP # 2) The
interrogatories would require members of this office to meet or communicate with
17 members of the City Council and inquire of them whether they knew if the co-
defendant, Eneida Martinez, was operating and deriving financial profits from the
Keystone Club in September 2020 (IRP # 3); when they acquired that knowledge
1
Notably, Murdock v. Croughwell was a case involving municipal actors.
4
and the source of that knowledge and whether they shared that knowledge (IRP
# 4); and whether they attended the Keystone Club between March 12, 2020 and
September 27, 2020 (IRP # 5).2
2The interrogatories also require the defendants to explain why Martinez
did not have a conflict of interest with respect to the Keystone Club (IRPs # 6, 7);
to “identify all individuals” - - anywhere - - who were aware or had secondhand
knowledge that Martinez was [purportedly] over-seeing or supervising
Bridgeport’s Department of Health (IRP # 8); to determine if any member of the
City Council ever expressed concerns about whether Martinez had a conflict of
interest with respect to the Keystone Club (IRP # 10); to identify all facts
defendants intend to present at trial that Martinez did not use her position on the
City Council to benefit the Keystone Club (IRP # 11); to identify whether the
Mayor was aware that Martinez operated the Keystone Club (IRP # 14); when he
became of aware of this and how (IRP # 15); whether he ever received money
from Martinez’s operation of the Keystone Club (IRP # 16) and the amount of
money and manner of payment (IRP # 17, 19); to identify all City Council
members who received payment form Martinez’s operation of the Keystone Cub
(IRP # 18); whether the City ever inspected the Keystone Club for health and
safety and if so when (IRP # 21); whether the City ever received complaints
about the Keystone Club, and if so the identity of the complainant, the dates of
the complaint and whether any action was taken (IRP # 21, 22, 23, 25); whether
the City ever investigated the Keystone Club for “operating outside of the law;” if
so, the dates of investigation, names of investigators and findings, and
enforcement action (IRPs # 26, 27); whether the Keystone ever received any
citations or fines (IRP # 31); whether Bridgeport’s departments of police, fire and
health monitored Keystone’s compliance with COVID-19 protocols between
March and September 2020, and the facts that it did (IRP # 32); to provide the
date of any ethics complaint against a member of the City Council from January
1, 2018 to January 1 2023, the nature of the complaint, the ethics violation and
whether there was an investigation (IRP #41); to identify all facts that the City, “its
subdivisions and departments,” enforced all applicable regulations and COVID-
19 Executive Orders against the Keystone Club from March 12, 2020 and
September 27, 2020 (IRP # 42); to identify all action taken by the City and its
“City Council, its employees, agents and officials to disclaim any affiliation with
the Keystone Club despite its public operation by the head [sic] of the City
Council” (IRP # 49); identify all actions taken by the City, “its City Council, its
employees, agents, and officials to disclaim any affiliation with the Keystone Club
despite its public promotion by the head [sic] of the City Council.” (IRP # 50). The
plaintiff’s production requests are even more abusive and demanding, for
example, that the defendant produce a copy of the Bridgeport police
department’s incident call records for the Keystone Club between January 1,
2014 and the present. (Production Requests 10, 11).
5
Further, by way of interrogatories, the plaintiff has asked the City to:
3. Identify whether the following individuals of the City of
Bridgeport knew that Eneida Martinez was operating and
deriving financial profits from the Keystone Club between
September 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020?
City Council Member Knowledge No Knowledge
Joe Ganim
Scott Burns
Matthew McCarthy
Jorge Cruz,
Denese Taylor-Moye
Marcus Brown
M. Evette Brantley
Jeanette Herron
Amy Marie Vizzo-Paniccia
Rosalina Roman-Christy
Mary McBride-Lee
Alfredo Castillo
Maria Valle
Aidee Nieves
Maria Pereira
Samia Suliman
Ernest Newton
4. For each of the individuals identified as having knowledge in
the preceding interrogatory, provide the date that individual
6
acquired the knowledge, the source of their knowledge, and
whether they shared the knowledge and with whom.
...
5. State whether any of the following City Council Members
attended the Keystone Club between March 12, 2020, and
September 27, 2020.
...
City Council Member Attended Did not Attend
Joe Ganim
Scott Burns
Matthew McCarthy
Jorge Cruz,
Denese Taylor-Moye
Marcus Brown
M. Evette Brantley
Jeanette Herron
Amy Marie Vizzo-Paniccia
Rosalina Roman-Christy
Mary McBride-Lee
Alfredo Castillo
Maria Valle
Aidee Nieves
Maria Pereira
Samia Suliman
Ernest Newton
7
These discovery requests are abusive and excessively burdensome on
their face. None of them can lead to admissible evidence that acts or omissions
of the City or Morrissey caused Nixon’s murder. It is unfair for the defendant City
to be put to the enormous cost and expenditure of time to attempt good faith
compliance with these requests when no legally sufficient cause of action has
been alleged nor can be alleged by the plaintiff. The decedent was murdered by
a third person who is being prosecuted for that murder. Until it has been
determined that the plaintiff can state and maintain in good faith a legally
sufficient cause of action against the defendant City and its former health director
- - under whose auspices the Keystone Club was shut down a month earlier - -
discovery should be stayed.
This is a modest sized municipal law office with only 2-3 attorneys devoted
to state court personal injury litigation. Compliance will require not only the time
of this lawyer but of several other municipal employees and several different
departments. And all this for a lawsuit that is irremediably legally flawed and likely
to be stricken in total by this court. Compliance by the City is also complicated by
the fact that some of those employed in or around the time of Nixon’s murder
have retired or are now employed elsewhere.
Third, the convenience of the court strongly militates in favor of staying
discovery pending the disposition of defendants’ dispositive motion. This will save
the court from expending scarce judicial time and resources on hearing and
resolving objections to plaintiff’s over 100 requests for admissions directed to
Morrissey and the City and objections to interrogatories and requests for
8
production. It will also save the court from dealing with the inevitable issues
related to the depositions that would follow.
Fourth, “the interest of persons not parties to the civil litigation” favors
staying discovery at this time. The time and attention of numerous current and
former employees and legislators will be unnecessarily consumed with complying
with plaintiff’s discovery requests. See, e.g., in Exhibit B, First Set of
Interrogatories (to the City of Bridgeport), interrogatory 3.
“Finally, the public interest supports staying [trial] court proceedings to
avoid potentially wasteful and unnecessary litigation costs where, as here, the
[defendant] has shown a substantial likelihood of success. . . .” Earl v. Boeing
Co., 21 F.4th 895, 900 (5th Cir. 2021).
The defendants respectfully move that their motion to stay discovery be
granted, pending the court’s disposition of the motion to strike.
THE DEFENDANTS, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
AND LISA KING-RILEY MORRISSEY
BY: _________/s/____________________
Bruce L. Levin
Associate City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
999 Broad Street – 2nd Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Telephone: 203-576-7647
Juris No. 006192
9
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the
court and transmitted to counsel of record on this 14th day of March, 2024, to:
Glen L. Formica, Esq.
Formica, P.C.
195 Church St., Fl 11
New Haven, CT 06510
gformica@formicalaw.com
mmorris@formicalaw.com
Amita P. Rossetti, Esq.
Renehan & Rossetti, LLP
114 Bank St., Ste. 2A
Waterbury, CT 06702
amita@renrosslaw.com
steph@renrosslaw.com
Richard J. Buturla, Esq.
Berchem Moses P.C.
75 Broad St., Milford, CT 06460
rbuturla@berchemmoses.com
jbenson@berchemmoses.com
_________/s/_______________
Bruce L. Levin
10
EXHIBIT A
ORDER OF ABATEMENT OR TO City of Bridgeport
CEASE AND DESIST DUE TO Department of Health & Social Services
NUISANCE
-In accordance with Executive Order Lisa Michelle Morrissey, MPH
No. 7PP Director -of Health & Social Services
999 Broad Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604
Instructions:
I. This Order must be signed by the Local Health Director or the Municipal Designee.
2. All areas in boxes and bracketed areas must he completed by preparer.
3. Prepare in duplicate; and provide a copy to the Directed Person or Entity upon issuance; a copy to be retained by preparer.
4. Provide Directed Person or Entity with copy ofAppeal Rights (attached) upon issuance.
DIRECTED PERSON OR ENTITY (oain~ ADDRESS OF DIRECTED PERSON OR ENTITY (no.,
street, town, state, and zip):
Richard Urban c/o, Keystone Cafe
1798 Barnum A venue
Bridgeport, CT 06610
ADDRESS OF THE PREMISES OWNED BY, OR UNDER Type of Business allowed to reopen under the rules issued by
THE CHARGE OF, THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON OR the Department of Economic and Community Development
ENTITY, WHERE VIOLATION EXISTS: ("Sector Rules")
1798 Barnum Avenue
Public Health Facility
Bridgeport, CT, 06610 v" Other, Specify: Bar/ Cafe
ORDER: Abatement EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER:
II' Cease and Desist
v" Immediately
Other, as specified:
NATURE OF NUISANCE and VIOLATION OF SECTOR RULES:
Violation of Executive Order 7ZZ, issued by Governor Ned Lamont as follows: On August 15, 2020,
Audrey Gaines observed that your establishment has failure to follow COVID-19 guidelines issued by the
State of Connecticut and operating out of license classification.
ABATEMENT, CLOSURE and/or OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED (if applicable):
Prepare a comprehensive written COVID-19 safety plan per the attached "Reopen Connecticut"
document. You may not reopen until all deficenies are remedied and your plan is reviewed and approved
in writing.
DATE FOR ABATEMENT, CLOSURE and/or OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE (if applicable):
Immediate Closure
DATE OF INSPECTION: INSPECTOR NAME AND TITLE:
8/15/2020 Audrey Gaines, Duputy Enforcement Offic{:)
I am:
II' Local Health Director of City of Bridgeport
D Municipal Designee of
I
' , , .
NAME (print) SIGNATURE { ( / l ' µ l / { f f e / , ( v ( . / ( ~ / ~
Lisa Michelle Morrissey, MPH
TITLE DATE t I,
Director of Health & Social Services
-// /
State Marshal Thomas Foldy
· P.O. BOX 6004
BRIDGEPORT, CT 06606
203-372-5184
· Fax: 203-3 72-3386
City of Bridgeport Dept. of Health & Social Servic
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
DATE OF SERVICE SERVICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNTDUE
8/17/2020 Order of Abatement or To Cease and
Desist Due to Nuisance
City of Bridgeport, Dept. of Health & Social
Services
Vs.
Richard Urban c/o Keystone Cafe
Total Fees · $55.80
Total $55.80
1798 Barnum Ave. Bridg.e poli, CT 06610
ref: :
State of Connecticut
SS: Bridgeport 8/17/2020
County of Fairfield
Then and there, by virture hereof, I made service of the within and foregoing original
Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance upon the within named
defendants.
With and in the Hand of Enedia Martiniz, person in charge
accepted for: Richard Urban c/o
Keystone Cafe
259 Prospect Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
By leaving a true and attested copy of the original Order of Abatement or To Cease
and Desist Due to Nuisance with my doings thereon endorsed.
One such copy of each of the within named defendants the within and foregoing is the
original Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance with my doings
thereon endorsed.
Fees: Attested
Service $40.00
Copies $4.00
Endorsed $0.80
Travel $11.00
Total Fees $55.80
State Marshal
Case: 38396 , Return 1
EXHIBIT B
Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT
V.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL MARCH 1, 2024
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
The plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, Christopher Goulden, Administrator of Estate
of Ny air Nixon, hereby propounds the following Request for Admissions upon the defendant,
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, to be answered under oath within thirty (30) days from the date hereof
pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, et seq.:
1. Eneida Martinez was a member of the City Council of the City of Bridgeport between
March 12, 2020 and September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
2. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez's conduct was governed by the Charter of the
City of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
3. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez's conduct was governed by the laws of the
State of Connecticut.
RESPONSE:
4. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with representing the interests of
her constituents.
RESPONSE:
5. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with serving the interests of her
constituents.
RESPONSE:
6. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with protecting the interests of
her constituents.
RESPONSE:
7. At all times on September 26, 2020, Eneida Martinez was a representative of the City of
Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
8. At all times on September 27, 2020, Eneida Martinez was a representative of the City of
Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
9. Keystone Lounge was also known as Bridgeport Social, LLC and/or Bridgeport Social
Club.
RESPONSE:
10. Keystone Club was a restaurant.
RESPONSE:
11. Keystone Club was a bar.
RESPONSE:
12. Keystone Club was an adult entertainment venue.
RESPONSE:
13. Keystone Club was open to members of the public.
RESPONSE:
14. Keystone Club had private members.
RESPONSE:
15. Keystone Club was located at 1798 Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
RESPONSE:
16. Eneida Martinez used her position as City Councilwoman to help promote Keystone
Club.
RESPONSE:
17. Eneida Martinez used her social media account in connection with her role on City
Council.
RESPONSE:
18. Eneida Martinez used her social media account in connection with promotion of
Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
19. Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
20. Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
21. Eneida Martinez was present at Keystone Club on September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
22. Eneida Martinez was present at Keystone Club on September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
23. Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
24. Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
25. Eneida Martinez derived financial benefits from Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
26. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one of the patrons at Keystone Club was a
constituent of Eneida Martinez as a Council woman for the City of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
27. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one of the patrons at Keystone Club was a City
Council member.
RESPONSE:
28. Eneida Martinez derived financial benefit from the constituents who were patrons of
Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
29. City of Bridgeport, through at least one of its employees, agents and/or servants, was
aware of the existence of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
30. City of Bridgeport, through at least one of its employees, agents and/or servants, was
present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
31. At least one ( 1) City Council member was aware of the existence of the Keystone Club
prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
32. At least one (1) City Council member had been present at Keystone Club prior to
September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
33. Executive Order 7D required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
34. Executive Order 7H required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
35. Executive Order 7J required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
36. Keystone Club eventually became known as Bridgeport Social Club.
RESPONSE:
37. Bridgeport Social Club had a list of members.
RESPONSE:
38. After Keystone Club became known as Bridgeport Social Club, it was still open to
members of the public.
RESPONSE:
39. Keystone Club served alcohol.
RESPONSE:
40. Bridgeport Social Club served alcohol.
RESPONSE:
41. Keystone Club aka Bridgeport Social Club issued identification cards.
RESPONSE:
42. Keystone Club had security personnel.
RESPONSE:
43. Eneida Martinez hired the security personnel for Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
44. Eneida Martinez has knowledge of the identity of the security personnel for Keystone
Club.
RESPONSE:
45. Eneida Martinez provided instruction to the security personnel at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
46. Eneida Martinez supervised the security personnel for Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
4 7. Eneida Martinez paid the security personnel for Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
48. Keystone Club charged a cover fee for entrance.
RESPONSE:
49. Keystone Club security personnel checked for weapons.
RESPONSE:
50. Keystone Club allowed weapons.
RESPONSE:
51. Keystone Club allowed weapons for an added fee .
RESPONSE:
52. On September 26, 2020, Keystone Club security personnel allowed at least one patron to
enter the premises with a weapon.
RESPONSE:
53. On September 27, 2020, there was at least one patron at Keyston Club who possessed a
firearm.
RESPONSE:
54. On September 26, 2020, security personnel knew that the gunman who later shot Nyair
Nixon was armed.
RESPONSE:
55. Security personnel at Keystone Club checked the identification of the patrons entering its
doors.
RESPONSE:
56. On September 26, 2020, there were surveillance cameras at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
57. On September 26, 2020, the surveillance cameras at Keystone Club were operational.
RESPONSE:
58. On September 27, 2020, there were surveillance cameras at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
59. On September 27, 2020, the surveillance cameras at Keystone Club were operational.
RESPONSE:
60. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport interacted
with Eneida Martinez about Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
61. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport
communicated with Eneida Martinez about Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
62. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport directed
Eneida Martinez to discontinue the operations of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
63. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew about
the existence of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
64. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew
Keystone Club was serving alcohol to its patrons.
RESPONSE:
65. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew
Keystone Club was operating as an adult entertainment venue.
RESPONSE:
66. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport who was
charged with regulation of entities such as Keystone Club was supervised by Eneida
Martinez.
RESPONSE:
67. Keystone Club was the only bar that was allowed to operate in the City of Bridgeport in
September 2020.
RESPONSE:
68. Keystone Club was the only bar that was in operation in the City of Bridgeport in
September 2020.
RESPONSE:
69. The crime rate in and/or around the location of Keystone Club in September 2020 was
high.
RESPONSE:
70. On September 26, 2020, Nyair Nixon was a patron of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
71. On September 27, 2020, Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
72. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not render aid to Nyair Nixon after he was
shot inside Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
73. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not direct anyone to render aid to Nyair
Nixon after he was shot inside Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
74. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not allow Nyair Nixon to stay inside
Keystone Club after he was shot.
RESPONSE:
75. Nyair Nixon was not allowed to stay inside Keystone Club after he was shot.
RESPONSE:
76. Nyair Nixon was forced into the street after he was shot inside Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
77. Prior to September 26, 2020, Lisa King Morrissey knew about the operations of Keystone
Club.
RESPONSE:
78. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport responded to at least one fire alarm at
Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
79. Within the first few hours after Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club, the City of
Bridgeport, through any agent, contacted the owner of the club.
RESPONSE:
80. Within the first few hours after Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club, at least one
member of the Bridgeport Police Department was contacted.
RESPONSE:
81. Eneida Martinez contacted at least one member of the Bridgeport Police Department via
text message.
RESPONSE:
82. Eneida Martinez contacted at least one member of the Bridgeport Police Department via
telephone call to their cell phone.
RESPONSE:
83. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport, through at least one
agent, reviewed the surveillance footage of the incident.
RESPONSE:
84. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport, through at least one
agent, saved the surveillance footage of the incident.
RESPONSE:
85. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, City of Bridgeport police took the surveillance
footage of the incident.
RESPONSE:
86. The City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, knew that members of the public
would be attracted to Keystone Club through its promotion on social media by Eneida
Martinez.
RESPONSE:
87. The City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, knew about the operations of
Keystone Club through its promotion on social media by Eneida Martinez.
RESPONSE:
88. At least one agent of the City of Bridgeport, knew about the operations of Keystone Club
prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
89. At least one agent of the City of Bridgeport, was present at Keystone Club prior to
September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
90. At least one member of City Council of the City of Bridgeport, was present at Keystone
Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
91. At least one member of City Council of the City of Bridgeport, knew about the operations
of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
92. Keystone Club was a dangerous venue.
RESPONSE:
93. Keystone Club was not an adequately secure environment for its patrons.
RESPONSE:
94. The City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
95. On September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the
patrons at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
96. On September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the
patrons at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
97. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not shut down Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
98. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport allowed Keystone Club to continue
operations.
RESPONSE:
THE PLAINTIFF,
By:
. ROSSETTI, ESQ.
Renehan & Rossetti, LLP
134 Highland Avenue
Waterbury, CT 06708
Juris No. 430809
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered
electronically or non-electronically on March 1, 2024 to all attorneys and self-represented parties
of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-
represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery.
Bruce L. Levin
Associate City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
999 Broad Street - 2nd Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Bruce.levin(a),brid2:eportct. gov
manda.keppl r@bridgeportct.,izov
Richard J. Buturla, Esq.
Berchem Moses PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
rbutw·I berchemm m
j benso erchemmo
Glenn L. Formica
Formica, P.C.
195 Church Street, 11th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
2.formica@formicalaw.com
mmorri @formjcalaw.com
/s/ 435358
Arnita P. Rossetti, Esq.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT
V.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL MARCH 1, 2024
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT LISA KING MORRISSEY
The plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, Christopher Goulden, Administrator of Estate
of Ny air Nixon, hereby propounds the following Request for Admissions upon the defendant,
LISA KING MORRISSEY, to be answered under oath within thirty (30) days from the date
hereof pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, et seq.:
1. You were the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport between March 12, 2020 and
September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
2. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, your conduct was governed by the
Charter of the City of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
3. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, your conduct was governed by the laws
of the State of Connecticut.
RESPONSE:
4. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with representing the
interests of your constituents.
RESPONSE:
5. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with serving the
interests of your constituents.
RESPONSE:
6. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with protecting the
interests of your constituents.
RESPONSE:
7. At all times as the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were a representative
of the City of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
8. As the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you knew that Keystone Club was not
supposed to be operational between March 13, 2020 and September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
9. Keystone Club was a restaurant.
RESPONSE:
10. Keystone Club was a bar.
RESPONSE:
11. Keystone Club was an adult entertainment venue.
RESPONSE:
12. Keystone Club was open to members of the public.
RESPONSE:
13. Keystone Club had private members.
RESPONSE:
14. Keystone Club was located at 1798 Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
RESPONSE:
15. You used your position as Health Director for the City of Bridgeport to allow the
continued operation of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
16. You were aware of Eneida Martinez's connection to Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
17. You allowed the continued operation of Keystone Club because of Martinez's affiliation
with the same.
RESPONSE:
18. You knew Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
19. You knew Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
20. You knew Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
21. You knew Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
22. You knew Eneida Martinez derived financial benefits from Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
23. Employees, agents and/or servants of the City of Bridgeport (excluding you) were aware
of the existence of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
24. Employees, agents and/or servants of the City of Bridgeport (excluding you) had been
present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
25. At least one (1) other City Council member (excluding Martinez) was aware of the
existence of the Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
26. At least one (1) other City Council member (excluding Martinez) had been present at
Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020.
RESPONSE:
27. Executive Order 7D required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
28. Executive Order 7H required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
29. Executive Order 7J required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
RESPONSE:
30. Keystone Club eventually became known as Bridgeport Social Club.
RESPONSE:
31. Bridgeport Social Club had a list of members.
RESPONSE:
32. After Keystone Club became known as Bridgeport Social Club, it was still open to
members of the public.
RESPONSE:
33. Keystone Club served alcohol.
RESPONSE:
34. Bridgeport Social Club served alcohol.
RESPONSE:
35. Keystone Club aka Bridgeport Social Club issued identification cards.
RESPONSE:
36. Prior to September 26, 2020, you interacted with employees of the City of Bridgeport
about Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
37. Prior to September 26, 2020, you communicated with employees of the City of
Bridgeport about Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
38. Prior to September 26, 2020, you were directed by at least one employee of the City of
Bridgeport to discontinue the operations of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
39. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew about
the existence of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
40. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew
Keystone Club was serving alcohol to its patrons.
RESPONSE:
41. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew
Keystone Club was operating as an adult entertainment venue.
RESPONSE:
42. Prior to September 26, 2020, you supervised at least one employee of the City of
Bridgeport who was charged with regulation of entities such as Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
43. Keystone Club was the only bar that was allowed to operate in the City of Bridgeport in
September 2020.
RESPONSE:
44. Keystone Club was the only bar that was in operation in the City of Bridgeport in
September 2020.
RESPONSE:
45. The crime rate in and/or around the location of Keystone Club in September 2020 was
high.
RESPONSE:
46. Prior to September 26, 2020, you knew about the operations of Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
4 7. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport responded to at least one fire alarm at
Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
48. Keystone Club was a dangerous venue.
RESPONSE:
49. Keystone Club was not an adequately secure environment for its patrons.
RESPONSE:
50. You did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club.
RESPONSE:
51. On September 26, 2020, you did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone
Club.
RESPONSE:
52. On September 27, 2020, you did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone
Club.
RESPONSE:
53. You had a duty to ensure that Keystone Club was following the local ordinances for the
City of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
54. You had a duty to ensure that Keystone Club was following the laws of the State of
Connecticut that applied to its operations.
RESPONSE:
55. You had a duty to report Keystone Club for violations of the local ordinances for the City
of Bridgeport.
RESPONSE:
56. You had a duty to report Keystone Club for violations of the laws of the State of
Connecticut as they applied to its operations.
RESPONSE:
57. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of local
ordinances in September 2020.
RESPONSE:
58. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive
Order 7D in September 2020.
RESPONSE:
59. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive
Order 7H in September 2020.
RESPONSE:
60. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive
Order 7J in September 2020.
RESPONSE:
61. You failed to take any disciplinary action against Keystone Club for its operations prior
to September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
62. You allowed Keystone Club to restart its operations on at least one occasion prior to
September 27, 2020.
RESPONSE:
THE PLAINTIFF,
By:
TA . ROSSETTI, ESQ.
Renehan & Rossetti, LLP
134 Highland Avenue
Waterbury, CT 06708
Juris No. 430809
tRenRossLa,; .com
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered
electronically or non-electronically on March 1, 2024 to all attorneys and self-represented parties
of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-
represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery.
Bruce L. Levin
Associate City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
999 Broad Street - 2nd Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Brue .le in@brid2:eportct.gov
manda.keppler@bridg portct.go
Richard J. Buturla, Esq.
Berchem Moses PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
rbuturla@berchemmo e .com
jben on ,berchemmo e .com
Glenn L. Formica
Formica, P.C.
195 Church Street, 11th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
gfonnica ,formicalaw.com
mmorris@formicalaw.com
Isl 435358
Arnita P. Rossetti, Esq.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT
V.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL March 7, 2024
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book §§ 13-6 and 13-7 the plaintiff, Christopher Goulden
Administrator for the Estate ofNyair Nixon, requests that City of Bridgeport answer the following
interrogatories, in writing and under oath, within Sixty (60) days upon service on counsel. Any
objections, per the Court's Scheduling Order are to be filed within 30 days.
DEFINITIONS
A. The definitions contained in Conn. Prac. Book § 13-1 are incorporated herein by
reference.
B. The City of Bridgeport includes the individual party litigant, agents, employees,
executors, non-privileged attorney or attorneys, and individual or entity authorized to act in a
representative capacity.
C. The term "you" or "your" means the City of Bridgeport includes the individual
party litigant, agents, employees, executors, non-privileged attorney or attorneys, and individual
or entity authorized to act in a representative capacity.
D. The term "identify" with respect to persons shall also include providing the
individual's most recent telephone number.
E. Names of entities and individuals when first referenced in your responses shall
include the legal name of the person or entity, address, telephone number, and if known, email.
F. "Document" in reference to your knowledge, includes any original and all copies
of any written, printed, typed, electronically stored, or graphic matter of any kind or nature,
however produced or reproduced, now in your possession, custody or control, or in the possession,
custody or control of your agents, representatives, employees of you or any and all persons acting
in your behalf, including documents at any time in the possession, custody or control of such
individuals or entities, or known by you to exist.
G. "Document" in reference to an item m your possession or control means
"document" or "documents" in the broadest sense permissible under Conn. Prac. Book § 13-1, and
include, without limitation, any "writing" as that term is defined in Rule 10-01 of the Connecticut
Rules of Evidence, and any original and non-identical copy of any and all written, typed, computer,
mechanical, photographic, printed, magnetic, audio, video and other electronic recordings or
records and/or other tangible records and forms of recorded information, however produced or
reproduced, including but not limited to: all letters, correspondence, interoffice communications,
electronic correspondence such as "e-mail," and other communications recorded in any form or
medium; records, memoranda, minutes, notes, answers, applications, appointment calendars,
attachments, blueprints, books, budget materials, bulletins, cables, CD ROMS, complaints,
computer models, computer tapes, computer programs, data processing cards, diagrams,
evaluations, guidebooks, hearing transcripts, indices, instructions, invoices, manuals, messages,
microfiche, motions, notices, opinions, pamphlets, papers, phone-mail recordings or transcripts
thereof, phone records, photographs, pleadings, printed forms, proposals, protests publications,
replies, responses, specifications, submissions, telegraphs, telexes, verified statements, telegrams,
summaries, computer printouts or disks or any information retained in a computer database which
can be reproduced; records of telephone calls and meetings, calendar and diary entr
Preview
DOCKET NO: FBT-CV22-6118195-S : SUPERIOR COURT CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, ADMIN : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD OF THE EST. OF NYAIR NIXON : V. : AT BRIDGEPORT CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL : MARCH 14, 2024 MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY To the Honorable Barry K. Stevens, Judge Trial Referee Pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5, the defendants, City of Bridgeport and Lisa Morrissey, respectfully move to stay discovery in this matter pending the disposition of the defendants’ Motion to Strike (#169.00). In the early morning hours of September 27, 2020, Nyair Nixon was shot and killed at the Keystone Club, a saloon on Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, CT. The assailant was arrested and is being prosecuted for murder. State v. Charles Lee Young, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, FBT-CR23-0353504-T. The administrator of Nixon’s estate has sued the City of Bridgeport and its former Health Director, Lisa Morrissey, in a 24-count complaint (fifteen counts of which are against the City and Morrissey, who is now with the State Department of Health). On February 20, 2024, the City and Morrissey filed a motion to strike all fifteen counts against them (#164.00), and a Revised Motion to Strike on February 28, 2024 (#169.00). On March 1, 2024, the plaintiff served 98 requests for admissions on the City of Bridgeport, 62 requests for admissions on Morrissey, 51 non-standard interrogatories to the City of Bridgeport (requiring that it meet and communicate with numerous non-party individuals) and production requests requiring the City 1 to produce voluminous documents, including Police and Health Department documents going back ten years. “In the absence of a statutory mandate, the granting of an application or a motion for a stay of an action or proceeding is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” (Emphasis added.) Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C., 116 Conn. App. 289, 311-12 (2009). Practice Book § 13-5 provides in 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: (1) that the discovery not be had. . . .” (Emphasis added.) One Connecticut court, borrowing a federal standard, has held: “In making [the] determination [to stay a matter], the court should balance: (1) the private interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice of the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (3) the convenience to the courts; (4) the interest of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Wilcox v. Webster Ins., 2008 WL 253054, at *4 (Conn. Super.), quoting Twenty First Century Corp. v. LaBianca, 801 F.Sup 1007, 1010 (E.D.N.Y. September 25, 2 1992); accord, Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd. v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, 2023 WL 7180683, at *4 (SDNY). Application of this test strongly militates in favor of a stay of discovery. First, the plaintiff has shown a limited interest in proceeding expeditiously with this case. He has had to go through no less than four revised complaints over the past year and is still in the pleading stage of this case. The plaintiff himself is seeking extensions of time to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and motion to strike. (Pleadings # 172.00, 178.00) Moreover, the plaintiff can incur no prejudice by a delay of discovery. It is a tragic fact that the plaintiff’s decedent is deceased, and the claims the plaintiff has asserted against the City and its former Health Director plainly lack merit. They cannot be resurrected by repleading or by discovery. “[A] court should also consider the strength of the dispositive motion that is the basis of the discovery stay application.” Spencer Trask Software and Info. Serv.s, LLC v. RPOST Int'l Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y.2002); see Ritchie v. Nyfix, Inc., 2007 WL 806240, at *1 (Conn. Super., Nadeau, J.) (discovery stayed pending disposition of dispositive motion); Cuartero v. United States, 2006 WL 3190521*1-*2 (D.Conn.2006) (Martinez, M., J.) (granting defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss). It is respectfully submitted that this court is likely to grant that motion as to all counts. The plaintiff’s decedent was murdered at a private saloon. Under Connecticut law, the City had no duty to protect him from his murderer, and no exception to that rule exists here. See Murdock v. Croughwell, 268 Conn. 559, 3 566 (2004) (“there generally is no duty that obligates one party to aid or to protect another party.”).1 If that were not enough, the defendants actually closed down the Keystone Club a month before Nixon was murdered. See Exhibit A. It was reopened only after its violations were remedied. Second, the burden on and prejudice to the defendants is very substantial. “In determining whether good cause exists for a stay of discovery, the court should consider several factors, including the breadth of the discovery sought, the burden of responding to it. . . .” Cuartero v. United States, supra, 2006 WL 3190521, at *1. The plaintiff’s various discovery requests are enormous and will consume an inordinate expenditure of time to interview the requested witnesses, some of whom are no longer with the City, to attempt good faith compliance with and object to the many discovery requests that are patently frivolous and unduly burdensome. Those discovery requests are made Exhibit B hereto. For example, the plaintiff has submitted 98 requests for admissions to the City of Bridgeport. The plaintiff has also submitted interrogatories that would require these defendants to “identify all individuals with knowledge of the allegations in the [24 count Fourth Revised] Complaint.” (IRP # 2) The interrogatories would require members of this office to meet or communicate with 17 members of the City Council and inquire of them whether they knew if the co- defendant, Eneida Martinez, was operating and deriving financial profits from the Keystone Club in September 2020 (IRP # 3); when they acquired that knowledge 1 Notably, Murdock v. Croughwell was a case involving municipal actors. 4 and the source of that knowledge and whether they shared that knowledge (IRP # 4); and whether they attended the Keystone Club between March 12, 2020 and September 27, 2020 (IRP # 5).2 2The interrogatories also require the defendants to explain why Martinez did not have a conflict of interest with respect to the Keystone Club (IRPs # 6, 7); to “identify all individuals” - - anywhere - - who were aware or had secondhand knowledge that Martinez was [purportedly] over-seeing or supervising Bridgeport’s Department of Health (IRP # 8); to determine if any member of the City Council ever expressed concerns about whether Martinez had a conflict of interest with respect to the Keystone Club (IRP # 10); to identify all facts defendants intend to present at trial that Martinez did not use her position on the City Council to benefit the Keystone Club (IRP # 11); to identify whether the Mayor was aware that Martinez operated the Keystone Club (IRP # 14); when he became of aware of this and how (IRP # 15); whether he ever received money from Martinez’s operation of the Keystone Club (IRP # 16) and the amount of money and manner of payment (IRP # 17, 19); to identify all City Council members who received payment form Martinez’s operation of the Keystone Cub (IRP # 18); whether the City ever inspected the Keystone Club for health and safety and if so when (IRP # 21); whether the City ever received complaints about the Keystone Club, and if so the identity of the complainant, the dates of the complaint and whether any action was taken (IRP # 21, 22, 23, 25); whether the City ever investigated the Keystone Club for “operating outside of the law;” if so, the dates of investigation, names of investigators and findings, and enforcement action (IRPs # 26, 27); whether the Keystone ever received any citations or fines (IRP # 31); whether Bridgeport’s departments of police, fire and health monitored Keystone’s compliance with COVID-19 protocols between March and September 2020, and the facts that it did (IRP # 32); to provide the date of any ethics complaint against a member of the City Council from January 1, 2018 to January 1 2023, the nature of the complaint, the ethics violation and whether there was an investigation (IRP #41); to identify all facts that the City, “its subdivisions and departments,” enforced all applicable regulations and COVID- 19 Executive Orders against the Keystone Club from March 12, 2020 and September 27, 2020 (IRP # 42); to identify all action taken by the City and its “City Council, its employees, agents and officials to disclaim any affiliation with the Keystone Club despite its public operation by the head [sic] of the City Council” (IRP # 49); identify all actions taken by the City, “its City Council, its employees, agents, and officials to disclaim any affiliation with the Keystone Club despite its public promotion by the head [sic] of the City Council.” (IRP # 50). The plaintiff’s production requests are even more abusive and demanding, for example, that the defendant produce a copy of the Bridgeport police department’s incident call records for the Keystone Club between January 1, 2014 and the present. (Production Requests 10, 11). 5 Further, by way of interrogatories, the plaintiff has asked the City to: 3. Identify whether the following individuals of the City of Bridgeport knew that Eneida Martinez was operating and deriving financial profits from the Keystone Club between September 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020? City Council Member Knowledge No Knowledge Joe Ganim Scott Burns Matthew McCarthy Jorge Cruz, Denese Taylor-Moye Marcus Brown M. Evette Brantley Jeanette Herron Amy Marie Vizzo-Paniccia Rosalina Roman-Christy Mary McBride-Lee Alfredo Castillo Maria Valle Aidee Nieves Maria Pereira Samia Suliman Ernest Newton 4. For each of the individuals identified as having knowledge in the preceding interrogatory, provide the date that individual 6 acquired the knowledge, the source of their knowledge, and whether they shared the knowledge and with whom. ... 5. State whether any of the following City Council Members attended the Keystone Club between March 12, 2020, and September 27, 2020. ... City Council Member Attended Did not Attend Joe Ganim Scott Burns Matthew McCarthy Jorge Cruz, Denese Taylor-Moye Marcus Brown M. Evette Brantley Jeanette Herron Amy Marie Vizzo-Paniccia Rosalina Roman-Christy Mary McBride-Lee Alfredo Castillo Maria Valle Aidee Nieves Maria Pereira Samia Suliman Ernest Newton 7 These discovery requests are abusive and excessively burdensome on their face. None of them can lead to admissible evidence that acts or omissions of the City or Morrissey caused Nixon’s murder. It is unfair for the defendant City to be put to the enormous cost and expenditure of time to attempt good faith compliance with these requests when no legally sufficient cause of action has been alleged nor can be alleged by the plaintiff. The decedent was murdered by a third person who is being prosecuted for that murder. Until it has been determined that the plaintiff can state and maintain in good faith a legally sufficient cause of action against the defendant City and its former health director - - under whose auspices the Keystone Club was shut down a month earlier - - discovery should be stayed. This is a modest sized municipal law office with only 2-3 attorneys devoted to state court personal injury litigation. Compliance will require not only the time of this lawyer but of several other municipal employees and several different departments. And all this for a lawsuit that is irremediably legally flawed and likely to be stricken in total by this court. Compliance by the City is also complicated by the fact that some of those employed in or around the time of Nixon’s murder have retired or are now employed elsewhere. Third, the convenience of the court strongly militates in favor of staying discovery pending the disposition of defendants’ dispositive motion. This will save the court from expending scarce judicial time and resources on hearing and resolving objections to plaintiff’s over 100 requests for admissions directed to Morrissey and the City and objections to interrogatories and requests for 8 production. It will also save the court from dealing with the inevitable issues related to the depositions that would follow. Fourth, “the interest of persons not parties to the civil litigation” favors staying discovery at this time. The time and attention of numerous current and former employees and legislators will be unnecessarily consumed with complying with plaintiff’s discovery requests. See, e.g., in Exhibit B, First Set of Interrogatories (to the City of Bridgeport), interrogatory 3. “Finally, the public interest supports staying [trial] court proceedings to avoid potentially wasteful and unnecessary litigation costs where, as here, the [defendant] has shown a substantial likelihood of success. . . .” Earl v. Boeing Co., 21 F.4th 895, 900 (5th Cir. 2021). The defendants respectfully move that their motion to stay discovery be granted, pending the court’s disposition of the motion to strike. THE DEFENDANTS, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT AND LISA KING-RILEY MORRISSEY BY: _________/s/____________________ Bruce L. Levin Associate City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 999 Broad Street – 2nd Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: 203-576-7647 Juris No. 006192 9 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the court and transmitted to counsel of record on this 14th day of March, 2024, to: Glen L. Formica, Esq. Formica, P.C. 195 Church St., Fl 11 New Haven, CT 06510 gformica@formicalaw.com mmorris@formicalaw.com Amita P. Rossetti, Esq. Renehan & Rossetti, LLP 114 Bank St., Ste. 2A Waterbury, CT 06702 amita@renrosslaw.com steph@renrosslaw.com Richard J. Buturla, Esq. Berchem Moses P.C. 75 Broad St., Milford, CT 06460 rbuturla@berchemmoses.com jbenson@berchemmoses.com _________/s/_______________ Bruce L. Levin 10 EXHIBIT A ORDER OF ABATEMENT OR TO City of Bridgeport CEASE AND DESIST DUE TO Department of Health & Social Services NUISANCE -In accordance with Executive Order Lisa Michelle Morrissey, MPH No. 7PP Director -of Health & Social Services 999 Broad Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604 Instructions: I. This Order must be signed by the Local Health Director or the Municipal Designee. 2. All areas in boxes and bracketed areas must he completed by preparer. 3. Prepare in duplicate; and provide a copy to the Directed Person or Entity upon issuance; a copy to be retained by preparer. 4. Provide Directed Person or Entity with copy ofAppeal Rights (attached) upon issuance. DIRECTED PERSON OR ENTITY (oain~ ADDRESS OF DIRECTED PERSON OR ENTITY (no., street, town, state, and zip): Richard Urban c/o, Keystone Cafe 1798 Barnum A venue Bridgeport, CT 06610 ADDRESS OF THE PREMISES OWNED BY, OR UNDER Type of Business allowed to reopen under the rules issued by THE CHARGE OF, THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON OR the Department of Economic and Community Development ENTITY, WHERE VIOLATION EXISTS: ("Sector Rules") 1798 Barnum Avenue Public Health Facility Bridgeport, CT, 06610 v" Other, Specify: Bar/ Cafe ORDER: Abatement EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER: II' Cease and Desist v" Immediately Other, as specified: NATURE OF NUISANCE and VIOLATION OF SECTOR RULES: Violation of Executive Order 7ZZ, issued by Governor Ned Lamont as follows: On August 15, 2020, Audrey Gaines observed that your establishment has failure to follow COVID-19 guidelines issued by the State of Connecticut and operating out of license classification. ABATEMENT, CLOSURE and/or OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED (if applicable): Prepare a comprehensive written COVID-19 safety plan per the attached "Reopen Connecticut" document. You may not reopen until all deficenies are remedied and your plan is reviewed and approved in writing. DATE FOR ABATEMENT, CLOSURE and/or OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE (if applicable): Immediate Closure DATE OF INSPECTION: INSPECTOR NAME AND TITLE: 8/15/2020 Audrey Gaines, Duputy Enforcement Offic{:) I am: II' Local Health Director of City of Bridgeport D Municipal Designee of I ' , , . NAME (print) SIGNATURE { ( / l ' µ l / { f f e / , ( v ( . / ( ~ / ~ Lisa Michelle Morrissey, MPH TITLE DATE t I, Director of Health & Social Services -// / State Marshal Thomas Foldy · P.O. BOX 6004 BRIDGEPORT, CT 06606 203-372-5184 · Fax: 203-3 72-3386 City of Bridgeport Dept. of Health & Social Servic 999 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 DATE OF SERVICE SERVICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNTDUE 8/17/2020 Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance City of Bridgeport, Dept. of Health & Social Services Vs. Richard Urban c/o Keystone Cafe Total Fees · $55.80 Total $55.80 1798 Barnum Ave. Bridg.e poli, CT 06610 ref: : State of Connecticut SS: Bridgeport 8/17/2020 County of Fairfield Then and there, by virture hereof, I made service of the within and foregoing original Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance upon the within named defendants. With and in the Hand of Enedia Martiniz, person in charge accepted for: Richard Urban c/o Keystone Cafe 259 Prospect Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 By leaving a true and attested copy of the original Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance with my doings thereon endorsed. One such copy of each of the within named defendants the within and foregoing is the original Order of Abatement or To Cease and Desist Due to Nuisance with my doings thereon endorsed. Fees: Attested Service $40.00 Copies $4.00 Endorsed $0.80 Travel $11.00 Total Fees $55.80 State Marshal Case: 38396 , Return 1 EXHIBIT B Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT V. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL MARCH 1, 2024 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF BRIDGEPORT The plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, Christopher Goulden, Administrator of Estate of Ny air Nixon, hereby propounds the following Request for Admissions upon the defendant, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, to be answered under oath within thirty (30) days from the date hereof pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, et seq.: 1. Eneida Martinez was a member of the City Council of the City of Bridgeport between March 12, 2020 and September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 2. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez's conduct was governed by the Charter of the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 3. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez's conduct was governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. RESPONSE: 4. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with representing the interests of her constituents. RESPONSE: 5. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with serving the interests of her constituents. RESPONSE: 6. As a City Councilwoman, Eneida Martinez was charged with protecting the interests of her constituents. RESPONSE: 7. At all times on September 26, 2020, Eneida Martinez was a representative of the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 8. At all times on September 27, 2020, Eneida Martinez was a representative of the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 9. Keystone Lounge was also known as Bridgeport Social, LLC and/or Bridgeport Social Club. RESPONSE: 10. Keystone Club was a restaurant. RESPONSE: 11. Keystone Club was a bar. RESPONSE: 12. Keystone Club was an adult entertainment venue. RESPONSE: 13. Keystone Club was open to members of the public. RESPONSE: 14. Keystone Club had private members. RESPONSE: 15. Keystone Club was located at 1798 Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut. RESPONSE: 16. Eneida Martinez used her position as City Councilwoman to help promote Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 17. Eneida Martinez used her social media account in connection with her role on City Council. RESPONSE: 18. Eneida Martinez used her social media account in connection with promotion of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 19. Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 20. Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 21. Eneida Martinez was present at Keystone Club on September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 22. Eneida Martinez was present at Keystone Club on September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 23. Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 24. Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 25. Eneida Martinez derived financial benefits from Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 26. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one of the patrons at Keystone Club was a constituent of Eneida Martinez as a Council woman for the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 27. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one of the patrons at Keystone Club was a City Council member. RESPONSE: 28. Eneida Martinez derived financial benefit from the constituents who were patrons of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 29. City of Bridgeport, through at least one of its employees, agents and/or servants, was aware of the existence of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 30. City of Bridgeport, through at least one of its employees, agents and/or servants, was present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 31. At least one ( 1) City Council member was aware of the existence of the Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 32. At least one (1) City Council member had been present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 33. Executive Order 7D required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 34. Executive Order 7H required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 35. Executive Order 7J required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 36. Keystone Club eventually became known as Bridgeport Social Club. RESPONSE: 37. Bridgeport Social Club had a list of members. RESPONSE: 38. After Keystone Club became known as Bridgeport Social Club, it was still open to members of the public. RESPONSE: 39. Keystone Club served alcohol. RESPONSE: 40. Bridgeport Social Club served alcohol. RESPONSE: 41. Keystone Club aka Bridgeport Social Club issued identification cards. RESPONSE: 42. Keystone Club had security personnel. RESPONSE: 43. Eneida Martinez hired the security personnel for Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 44. Eneida Martinez has knowledge of the identity of the security personnel for Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 45. Eneida Martinez provided instruction to the security personnel at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 46. Eneida Martinez supervised the security personnel for Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 4 7. Eneida Martinez paid the security personnel for Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 48. Keystone Club charged a cover fee for entrance. RESPONSE: 49. Keystone Club security personnel checked for weapons. RESPONSE: 50. Keystone Club allowed weapons. RESPONSE: 51. Keystone Club allowed weapons for an added fee . RESPONSE: 52. On September 26, 2020, Keystone Club security personnel allowed at least one patron to enter the premises with a weapon. RESPONSE: 53. On September 27, 2020, there was at least one patron at Keyston Club who possessed a firearm. RESPONSE: 54. On September 26, 2020, security personnel knew that the gunman who later shot Nyair Nixon was armed. RESPONSE: 55. Security personnel at Keystone Club checked the identification of the patrons entering its doors. RESPONSE: 56. On September 26, 2020, there were surveillance cameras at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 57. On September 26, 2020, the surveillance cameras at Keystone Club were operational. RESPONSE: 58. On September 27, 2020, there were surveillance cameras at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 59. On September 27, 2020, the surveillance cameras at Keystone Club were operational. RESPONSE: 60. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport interacted with Eneida Martinez about Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 61. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport communicated with Eneida Martinez about Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 62. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport directed Eneida Martinez to discontinue the operations of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 63. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew about the existence of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 64. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew Keystone Club was serving alcohol to its patrons. RESPONSE: 65. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew Keystone Club was operating as an adult entertainment venue. RESPONSE: 66. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport who was charged with regulation of entities such as Keystone Club was supervised by Eneida Martinez. RESPONSE: 67. Keystone Club was the only bar that was allowed to operate in the City of Bridgeport in September 2020. RESPONSE: 68. Keystone Club was the only bar that was in operation in the City of Bridgeport in September 2020. RESPONSE: 69. The crime rate in and/or around the location of Keystone Club in September 2020 was high. RESPONSE: 70. On September 26, 2020, Nyair Nixon was a patron of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 71. On September 27, 2020, Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 72. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not render aid to Nyair Nixon after he was shot inside Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 73. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not direct anyone to render aid to Nyair Nixon after he was shot inside Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 74. The City of Bridgeport, through any agent, did not allow Nyair Nixon to stay inside Keystone Club after he was shot. RESPONSE: 75. Nyair Nixon was not allowed to stay inside Keystone Club after he was shot. RESPONSE: 76. Nyair Nixon was forced into the street after he was shot inside Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 77. Prior to September 26, 2020, Lisa King Morrissey knew about the operations of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 78. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport responded to at least one fire alarm at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 79. Within the first few hours after Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club, the City of Bridgeport, through any agent, contacted the owner of the club. RESPONSE: 80. Within the first few hours after Nyair Nixon was shot inside Keystone Club, at least one member of the Bridgeport Police Department was contacted. RESPONSE: 81. Eneida Martinez contacted at least one member of the Bridgeport Police Department via text message. RESPONSE: 82. Eneida Martinez contacted at least one member of the Bridgeport Police Department via telephone call to their cell phone. RESPONSE: 83. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, reviewed the surveillance footage of the incident. RESPONSE: 84. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, saved the surveillance footage of the incident. RESPONSE: 85. After the shooting on September 27, 2020, City of Bridgeport police took the surveillance footage of the incident. RESPONSE: 86. The City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, knew that members of the public would be attracted to Keystone Club through its promotion on social media by Eneida Martinez. RESPONSE: 87. The City of Bridgeport, through at least one agent, knew about the operations of Keystone Club through its promotion on social media by Eneida Martinez. RESPONSE: 88. At least one agent of the City of Bridgeport, knew about the operations of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 89. At least one agent of the City of Bridgeport, was present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 90. At least one member of City Council of the City of Bridgeport, was present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 91. At least one member of City Council of the City of Bridgeport, knew about the operations of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 92. Keystone Club was a dangerous venue. RESPONSE: 93. Keystone Club was not an adequately secure environment for its patrons. RESPONSE: 94. The City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 95. On September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 96. On September 27, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 97. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport did not shut down Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 98. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport allowed Keystone Club to continue operations. RESPONSE: THE PLAINTIFF, By: . ROSSETTI, ESQ. Renehan & Rossetti, LLP 134 Highland Avenue Waterbury, CT 06708 Juris No. 430809 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically on March 1, 2024 to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self- represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery. Bruce L. Levin Associate City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 999 Broad Street - 2nd Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Bruce.levin(a),brid2:eportct. gov manda.keppl r@bridgeportct.,izov Richard J. Buturla, Esq. Berchem Moses PC 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 rbutw·I berchemm m j benso erchemmo Glenn L. Formica Formica, P.C. 195 Church Street, 11th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 2.formica@formicalaw.com mmorri @formjcalaw.com /s/ 435358 Arnita P. Rossetti, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT V. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL MARCH 1, 2024 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT LISA KING MORRISSEY The plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, Christopher Goulden, Administrator of Estate of Ny air Nixon, hereby propounds the following Request for Admissions upon the defendant, LISA KING MORRISSEY, to be answered under oath within thirty (30) days from the date hereof pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, et seq.: 1. You were the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport between March 12, 2020 and September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 2. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, your conduct was governed by the Charter of the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 3. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, your conduct was governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. RESPONSE: 4. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with representing the interests of your constituents. RESPONSE: 5. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with serving the interests of your constituents. RESPONSE: 6. As a Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were charged with protecting the interests of your constituents. RESPONSE: 7. At all times as the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you were a representative of the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 8. As the Health Director for the City of Bridgeport, you knew that Keystone Club was not supposed to be operational between March 13, 2020 and September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 9. Keystone Club was a restaurant. RESPONSE: 10. Keystone Club was a bar. RESPONSE: 11. Keystone Club was an adult entertainment venue. RESPONSE: 12. Keystone Club was open to members of the public. RESPONSE: 13. Keystone Club had private members. RESPONSE: 14. Keystone Club was located at 1798 Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut. RESPONSE: 15. You used your position as Health Director for the City of Bridgeport to allow the continued operation of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 16. You were aware of Eneida Martinez's connection to Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 17. You allowed the continued operation of Keystone Club because of Martinez's affiliation with the same. RESPONSE: 18. You knew Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 19. You knew Eneida Martinez was operating Keystone Club on September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 20. You knew Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 21. You knew Eneida Martinez was the manager of Keystone Club on September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 22. You knew Eneida Martinez derived financial benefits from Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 23. Employees, agents and/or servants of the City of Bridgeport (excluding you) were aware of the existence of Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 24. Employees, agents and/or servants of the City of Bridgeport (excluding you) had been present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 25. At least one (1) other City Council member (excluding Martinez) was aware of the existence of the Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 26. At least one (1) other City Council member (excluding Martinez) had been present at Keystone Club prior to September 26, 2020. RESPONSE: 27. Executive Order 7D required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 28. Executive Order 7H required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 29. Executive Order 7J required Keystone Club to shut down operations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic. RESPONSE: 30. Keystone Club eventually became known as Bridgeport Social Club. RESPONSE: 31. Bridgeport Social Club had a list of members. RESPONSE: 32. After Keystone Club became known as Bridgeport Social Club, it was still open to members of the public. RESPONSE: 33. Keystone Club served alcohol. RESPONSE: 34. Bridgeport Social Club served alcohol. RESPONSE: 35. Keystone Club aka Bridgeport Social Club issued identification cards. RESPONSE: 36. Prior to September 26, 2020, you interacted with employees of the City of Bridgeport about Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 37. Prior to September 26, 2020, you communicated with employees of the City of Bridgeport about Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 38. Prior to September 26, 2020, you were directed by at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport to discontinue the operations of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 39. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew about the existence of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 40. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew Keystone Club was serving alcohol to its patrons. RESPONSE: 41. Prior to September 26, 2020, at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport knew Keystone Club was operating as an adult entertainment venue. RESPONSE: 42. Prior to September 26, 2020, you supervised at least one employee of the City of Bridgeport who was charged with regulation of entities such as Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 43. Keystone Club was the only bar that was allowed to operate in the City of Bridgeport in September 2020. RESPONSE: 44. Keystone Club was the only bar that was in operation in the City of Bridgeport in September 2020. RESPONSE: 45. The crime rate in and/or around the location of Keystone Club in September 2020 was high. RESPONSE: 46. Prior to September 26, 2020, you knew about the operations of Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 4 7. Prior to September 26, 2020, the City of Bridgeport responded to at least one fire alarm at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 48. Keystone Club was a dangerous venue. RESPONSE: 49. Keystone Club was not an adequately secure environment for its patrons. RESPONSE: 50. You did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 51. On September 26, 2020, you did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 52. On September 27, 2020, you did not ensure reasonable safety of the patrons at Keystone Club. RESPONSE: 53. You had a duty to ensure that Keystone Club was following the local ordinances for the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 54. You had a duty to ensure that Keystone Club was following the laws of the State of Connecticut that applied to its operations. RESPONSE: 55. You had a duty to report Keystone Club for violations of the local ordinances for the City of Bridgeport. RESPONSE: 56. You had a duty to report Keystone Club for violations of the laws of the State of Connecticut as they applied to its operations. RESPONSE: 57. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of local ordinances in September 2020. RESPONSE: 58. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive Order 7D in September 2020. RESPONSE: 59. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive Order 7H in September 2020. RESPONSE: 60. You knew that the continued operations of Keystone Club were in violation of Executive Order 7J in September 2020. RESPONSE: 61. You failed to take any disciplinary action against Keystone Club for its operations prior to September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: 62. You allowed Keystone Club to restart its operations on at least one occasion prior to September 27, 2020. RESPONSE: THE PLAINTIFF, By: TA . ROSSETTI, ESQ. Renehan & Rossetti, LLP 134 Highland Avenue Waterbury, CT 06708 Juris No. 430809 tRenRossLa,; .com CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically on March 1, 2024 to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self- represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery. Bruce L. Levin Associate City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 999 Broad Street - 2nd Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Brue .le in@brid2:eportct.gov manda.keppler@bridg portct.go Richard J. Buturla, Esq. Berchem Moses PC 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 rbuturla@berchemmo e .com jben on ,berchemmo e .com Glenn L. Formica Formica, P.C. 195 Church Street, 11th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 gfonnica ,formicalaw.com mmorris@formicalaw.com Isl 435358 Arnita P. Rossetti, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court Docket No. FBT-CV22-6118195-S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHRISTOPHER GOULDEN, J.D. OF FAIRFIELD ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF NYAIR NIXON AT BRIDGEPORT V. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, ET AL March 7, 2024 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book §§ 13-6 and 13-7 the plaintiff, Christopher Goulden Administrator for the Estate ofNyair Nixon, requests that City of Bridgeport answer the following interrogatories, in writing and under oath, within Sixty (60) days upon service on counsel. Any objections, per the Court's Scheduling Order are to be filed within 30 days. DEFINITIONS A. The definitions contained in Conn. Prac. Book § 13-1 are incorporated herein by reference. B. The City of Bridgeport includes the individual party litigant, agents, employees, executors, non-privileged attorney or attorneys, and individual or entity authorized to act in a representative capacity. C. The term "you" or "your" means the City of Bridgeport includes the individual party litigant, agents, employees, executors, non-privileged attorney or attorneys, and individual or entity authorized to act in a representative capacity. D. The term "identify" with respect to persons shall also include providing the individual's most recent telephone number. E. Names of entities and individuals when first referenced in your responses shall include the legal name of the person or entity, address, telephone number, and if known, email. F. "Document" in reference to your knowledge, includes any original and all copies of any written, printed, typed, electronically stored, or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, now in your possession, custody or control, or in the possession, custody or control of your agents, representatives, employees of you or any and all persons acting in your behalf, including documents at any time in the possession, custody or control of such individuals or entities, or known by you to exist. G. "Document" in reference to an item m your possession or control means "document" or "documents" in the broadest sense permissible under Conn. Prac. Book § 13-1, and include, without limitation, any "writing" as that term is defined in Rule 10-01 of the Connecticut Rules of Evidence, and any original and non-identical copy of any and all written, typed, computer, mechanical, photographic, printed, magnetic, audio, video and other electronic recordings or records and/or other tangible records and forms of recorded information, however produced or reproduced, including but not limited to: all letters, correspondence, interoffice communications, electronic correspondence such as "e-mail," and other communications recorded in any form or medium; records, memoranda, minutes, notes, answers, applications, appointment calendars, attachments, blueprints, books, budget materials, bulletins, cables, CD ROMS, complaints, computer models, computer tapes, computer programs, data processing cards, diagrams, evaluations, guidebooks, hearing transcripts, indices, instructions, invoices, manuals, messages, microfiche, motions, notices, opinions, pamphlets, papers, phone-mail recordings or transcripts thereof, phone records, photographs, pleadings, printed forms, proposals, protests publications, replies, responses, specifications, submissions, telegraphs, telexes, verified statements, telegrams, summaries, computer printouts or disks or any information retained in a computer database which can be reproduced; records of telephone calls and meetings, calendar and diary entr