Preview
Page: 16 of24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’
DOCKET NO,: UWY-CV22-6065118-S SUPERIOR COURT
JUSTIN PARE J.D. OF WATERBURY
VS. AT WATERBURY
& ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS APRIL 26, 2024
CORPORATION; ET AL
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION REQUESTS IN
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
a
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-5, the nonparty The Stop & Shop
g Supermarket Company LLC (the“‘movant”), hereby objects to the production requests
ug
as
38 contained in the defendants’ Notice of Deposition of its employee Tyler Petitti, dated
Be
$¢ April 4, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, good cause exists for a
ae
Ze
protective order to the extent that the defendants seek to compel the production of
z
°2 records at the deposition that are not relevant or material to the plaintiffs cause of
Bo
Eg
S=
28 action or any defense, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and are otherwise objectionable for the reasons indicated below.
The movant does not object to deposition testimony and will agree to a deposition
8
scheduled on May 3, 2024, without the production of any records.
1 BACKGROUND
In his amended complaint dated January 11, 2023, the plaintiff alleges that he
suffered injuries and damages to his right-hand following the malfunction of an Ultra
48 Reverse Vending Machine (RVM), located in Stop & Shop at 1135 Farmington
Avenue in Berlin, Connecticut. (Amended Complaint; (¥ 5, 7-8.) He alleges that the
SUPERIOR COURT
WATERBURY J.D.
APR 26 2024
CLERK’S OFFICE
Page: 17 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’
defendants deviated from the standard of care owed to the plaintiff by negligently
designing, testing, manufacturing, preparing, assembling, labeling, testing,
distributing, and/or selling the Ultra 48 RVM. (Amend. Compl.; §¥ 12-13.)
The defendants noticed the deposition of Petitti and directed him to bring
g certain documents to the deposition, to which the movant objects,
I. LEGALSTANDARD
Practice Book § 13-5 provides the following: “Upon motion by a party from
s
whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may make
5
gk any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment,
a5
48
Be
oppression, or undue burden or expense ... .” “Good cause has been defined as a
Be
23 sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action. . . Good cause must be based
e5
z upona particular
and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped
49
2
ae and conclusory statements.” Ww elch vy. Welch, 48 Conn. Supp. 19, 20 (2003) (citation
Sz
28
az
36 omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). “The use of protective orders and the
extent of discovery is within the discretion of the trial judge.” Peatie v. Wal-Mart
Ss tores, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 8, 15 (2009).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized motions for protective orders
and motions to quash filed by nonparties to litigation seeking to protect their own
interests. See Construction Services of Bristol, Inc. v. CDC Financial Corp., No.
CV9704787098, 2000 WL 1770277, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2000) (citing
Lougee v. Grinnell, 216 Conn. 483, 487 n. 3 (1990)).
-2-
Page: 18 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL
TH. ARGUMENT
A The Requests for Production Seek Information That is Not
Discoverable.
Practice Book § 13-2 allows for the discovery of information that “relates to
the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any
other party.”
Discovery is confined to facts material to the plaintiff's
aS cause of action and does not afford an open invitation to
& delve into [a party’s] affairs .... A plaintiffmust be able
to demonstrate good faith as well as probable cause that
the information sought is both material and necessary to
&
his action.... A plaintiff... should not be allowed to
gh
as indulge a hope that a thorough ransacking of any
&
information and material which the [party] may possess
would turn up evidence helpful to [his] case... .
es
Re Berger v. Cuomo, 230 Conn. 1, 6-7 (1994) (citations omitted; internal quotation marks
See also,
omitted) (emphasis added). pee also, Construction Services of Bristol, Inc. v. CDC
Ru
Financial Corp., 2000 WL 1770277 at *4 (the court upheld the nonparty movants’
28
36
motion for protective order in part because the financial information that had been
requested did not relate to the allegations made in the complaint).
Here, the information the defendants seek is not relevant to the allegations in
the plaintiff's operative complaint or any defense thereto. Instead, the defendants
a
broadly seek copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, etc. issued to or
S$ concerning any Stop & Shop employee as a result of violating any rule, policy,
guideline regarding the RVMs at the Berlin, Connecticut store within the three years
prior to the subject incident. These requests regarding Stop & Shop’s employees will
-3-
Page: 19 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’
not lead to discoverable evidence in this product liability claim.
Specifically, the requests are overly broad, immaterial, and would unduly
burden the movant. For example, the defendants seek “all incident reports, warnings,
citations, or the like” for incidents with respect to Stop & Shop employees and all
z
RVMs located at the Berlin, Connecticut store. Moreover, the movant has already
voluntarily provided pertinent information through prior authorization; therefore,
these additional requests are unnecessary and would ultimately only burden the
g
movant,
a
uw B. Objections to Production Requests.
s
AR
we
General Objection:
Be
23 The defendant generally objects to all requests to the extent they request
es disclosures that may contain confidential medical or employment information
8ssc
that cannot be disclosed without valid authorization or court order to comply
3 with federal and state disclosure laws.
Bu
Ee
Sz Specific Objections:
Ac
The defendants’ Notice of Deposition of Petitti includes the following requests
for production:
1) Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like
x (redacted to the extent necessary to protect personal
information), issued to any Stop & Shop employee as a result of
violating any rule, policy, guideline, or the like, with respect to
the RVMs at the Stop & Shop in Berlin, Connecticut in the 3
years preceding May 6, 2021.
g Objection: The movant objects to this request on the grounds that this request is overly
broad and unduly burdensome. Itseeks documents covering a vast range of incidents,
warnings, and citations issued to any Stop & Shop employee. Additionally, this
request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2) Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like
(redacted to the extent necessary to protect personal
-4-
Page: 20 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL!
information), issued to or concerning any Stop & Shop employee
violating any rule, policy, procedure, guideline, or the like, with
the respect to the RVMs at the Berlin Store location subsequent
to May 6, 2021.
Objection: The movant objects to this request on the grounds that this request is overly
& broad and unduly burdensome. Itseeks documents covering a vast range of incidents,
warnings, and citations issued to any Stop & Shop employee. Additionally, this
request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
a
‘Wherefore, the movant objects to the defendants’ requests for production
contained in the Notice of Deposition of Tyler Petitti dated April 4, 2024 (See Ex. A)
g and seeks a protective order preventing the defendants from going forward with the
gk
As
58
Be deposition unless Petitti is not required to produce the requesteddocuments.
Ee
Be
23
Se
2 NONPARTY WITNESS,
2 THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET
go COMPANY LLC
eg
28
46
By. /s/420301
Kevin C. Hines, Esq.
NUZZO & ROBERTS, L.L.C.
One Town Center
P.O. Box 747
Cheshire, CT 06410
Phone: (203) 250-2000
a Facsimile: (203) 250-3131
Juris No. 019193
khines/ -roberts.com
Z
-5-
Page: 21 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL!
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered
electronically or non-electronically on April 26, 2024 to all counsel and self-
represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was
received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will
immediately be electronically served.
Ryan K. Sullivan, Esq.
RisCassi and Davis, P.C.
131 Oak Street
PO Box 261557
& Hartford, CT 06126
Sullivan@riscassidavis.com
&
gk Christopher S. Acquanita, Esq.
& Law Office of Cynthia M. Garraty
g.Bs PO Box 2903
Hartford, CT 06104
23 acquani@travelers.com
es
z
/s/420301
8
Qu
Eg Kevin C. Hines
aa
36
FAWP\ 9056\S6NDEPOSITION PetittiiMot Protective Order Petitti 04 26 24.docx
x
&
-6-
Page: 22 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL!
2
Page: 23 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL!
DOCKET NO.: UWY-CV22-6065118-S
JUSTIN PARE SUPERIOR COURT
a
V. J.D, OF WATERBURY
AT WATERBURY
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
ETAL APRIL 4, 2024
og
eB
f2 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Sections 13-26 through 13-32 of the Practice
28
Book, the undersigned defendant in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of
Ba
58 Tyler Petitti for the purpose of discovery and/or use at trial thereof, on Friday, May 3, 2024 at
of
oo
Or 3:00 p.m. before Cassian Court Reporter, or other competent authority, at the office of Nuzzo
ws
a & Roberts, One Town Center, Cheshire, Connecticut.
mS
Os The deponent is required to produce the following documents at the time of the
Bs
deposition:
1. Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like (redacted to the extent
a necessary to protect personal information), issued to any Stop & Shop employee as a
result of violating any rule, policy, guideline, or the like, with respect to the RVMs at
the Stop & Shop in Berlin, Connecticut in the 3 years preceding May 6, 2021.
Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like redacted to the extent
necessary to protect personal information), issued to or concerning any Stop & Shop
Page: 24 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL
employee violating any rule, policy, procedure, guideline, or the like, with the respect
to the RVMs at the Berlin Store location subsequent to May 6, 2021.
DEFENDANTS:
z
Chuustiphen db. Lequeauati
By (#414366)
Christopher S. Acquanita
BSA
Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty
<= P.O. Box 2903, Hartford, CT 06104-2903
23
Be 00 Juris No. 412798
CERTIFICATION
283
This hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted by fax
ea
or mailed, postage prepaid, on this 4" day of April, 2024 to:
38
ULF
Kevin Hines, Esquire Cassian Court Reporter
Or
Neo Nuzzo & Roberts, LLC EM: scheduling @cassianreporting.com
One Town Center
os Cheshire, CT 06410
2
Os EM: khines@nuzzo-roberts.com
Se
Ryan K. Sullivan, Esquire
RisCassi and Davis, P.C.
131 Oak Street
P.O. Box 261557
a Hartford, CT 06126-1557
EM: rsullivan@riscassidavis.com
—fs/
Christopher S. Acquanita
Preview
Page: 16 of24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’ DOCKET NO,: UWY-CV22-6065118-S SUPERIOR COURT JUSTIN PARE J.D. OF WATERBURY VS. AT WATERBURY & ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS APRIL 26, 2024 CORPORATION; ET AL MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION REQUESTS IN NOTICE OF DEPOSITION a Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-5, the nonparty The Stop & Shop g Supermarket Company LLC (the“‘movant”), hereby objects to the production requests ug as 38 contained in the defendants’ Notice of Deposition of its employee Tyler Petitti, dated Be $¢ April 4, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, good cause exists for a ae Ze protective order to the extent that the defendants seek to compel the production of z °2 records at the deposition that are not relevant or material to the plaintiffs cause of Bo Eg S= 28 action or any defense, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and are otherwise objectionable for the reasons indicated below. The movant does not object to deposition testimony and will agree to a deposition 8 scheduled on May 3, 2024, without the production of any records. 1 BACKGROUND In his amended complaint dated January 11, 2023, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries and damages to his right-hand following the malfunction of an Ultra 48 Reverse Vending Machine (RVM), located in Stop & Shop at 1135 Farmington Avenue in Berlin, Connecticut. (Amended Complaint; (¥ 5, 7-8.) He alleges that the SUPERIOR COURT WATERBURY J.D. APR 26 2024 CLERK’S OFFICE Page: 17 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’ defendants deviated from the standard of care owed to the plaintiff by negligently designing, testing, manufacturing, preparing, assembling, labeling, testing, distributing, and/or selling the Ultra 48 RVM. (Amend. Compl.; §¥ 12-13.) The defendants noticed the deposition of Petitti and directed him to bring g certain documents to the deposition, to which the movant objects, I. LEGALSTANDARD Practice Book § 13-5 provides the following: “Upon motion by a party from s whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may make 5 gk any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, a5 48 Be oppression, or undue burden or expense ... .” “Good cause has been defined as a Be 23 sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action. . . Good cause must be based e5 z upona particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped 49 2 ae and conclusory statements.” Ww elch vy. Welch, 48 Conn. Supp. 19, 20 (2003) (citation Sz 28 az 36 omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). “The use of protective orders and the extent of discovery is within the discretion of the trial judge.” Peatie v. Wal-Mart Ss tores, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 8, 15 (2009). The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized motions for protective orders and motions to quash filed by nonparties to litigation seeking to protect their own interests. See Construction Services of Bristol, Inc. v. CDC Financial Corp., No. CV9704787098, 2000 WL 1770277, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2000) (citing Lougee v. Grinnell, 216 Conn. 483, 487 n. 3 (1990)). -2- Page: 18 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL TH. ARGUMENT A The Requests for Production Seek Information That is Not Discoverable. Practice Book § 13-2 allows for the discovery of information that “relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party.” Discovery is confined to facts material to the plaintiff's aS cause of action and does not afford an open invitation to & delve into [a party’s] affairs .... A plaintiffmust be able to demonstrate good faith as well as probable cause that the information sought is both material and necessary to & his action.... A plaintiff... should not be allowed to gh as indulge a hope that a thorough ransacking of any & information and material which the [party] may possess would turn up evidence helpful to [his] case... . es Re Berger v. Cuomo, 230 Conn. 1, 6-7 (1994) (citations omitted; internal quotation marks See also, omitted) (emphasis added). pee also, Construction Services of Bristol, Inc. v. CDC Ru Financial Corp., 2000 WL 1770277 at *4 (the court upheld the nonparty movants’ 28 36 motion for protective order in part because the financial information that had been requested did not relate to the allegations made in the complaint). Here, the information the defendants seek is not relevant to the allegations in the plaintiff's operative complaint or any defense thereto. Instead, the defendants a broadly seek copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, etc. issued to or S$ concerning any Stop & Shop employee as a result of violating any rule, policy, guideline regarding the RVMs at the Berlin, Connecticut store within the three years prior to the subject incident. These requests regarding Stop & Shop’s employees will -3- Page: 19 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL’ not lead to discoverable evidence in this product liability claim. Specifically, the requests are overly broad, immaterial, and would unduly burden the movant. For example, the defendants seek “all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like” for incidents with respect to Stop & Shop employees and all z RVMs located at the Berlin, Connecticut store. Moreover, the movant has already voluntarily provided pertinent information through prior authorization; therefore, these additional requests are unnecessary and would ultimately only burden the g movant, a uw B. Objections to Production Requests. s AR we General Objection: Be 23 The defendant generally objects to all requests to the extent they request es disclosures that may contain confidential medical or employment information 8ssc that cannot be disclosed without valid authorization or court order to comply 3 with federal and state disclosure laws. Bu Ee Sz Specific Objections: Ac The defendants’ Notice of Deposition of Petitti includes the following requests for production: 1) Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like x (redacted to the extent necessary to protect personal information), issued to any Stop & Shop employee as a result of violating any rule, policy, guideline, or the like, with respect to the RVMs at the Stop & Shop in Berlin, Connecticut in the 3 years preceding May 6, 2021. g Objection: The movant objects to this request on the grounds that this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Itseeks documents covering a vast range of incidents, warnings, and citations issued to any Stop & Shop employee. Additionally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2) Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like (redacted to the extent necessary to protect personal -4- Page: 20 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL! information), issued to or concerning any Stop & Shop employee violating any rule, policy, procedure, guideline, or the like, with the respect to the RVMs at the Berlin Store location subsequent to May 6, 2021. Objection: The movant objects to this request on the grounds that this request is overly & broad and unduly burdensome. Itseeks documents covering a vast range of incidents, warnings, and citations issued to any Stop & Shop employee. Additionally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. IV. CONCLUSION a ‘Wherefore, the movant objects to the defendants’ requests for production contained in the Notice of Deposition of Tyler Petitti dated April 4, 2024 (See Ex. A) g and seeks a protective order preventing the defendants from going forward with the gk As 58 Be deposition unless Petitti is not required to produce the requesteddocuments. Ee Be 23 Se 2 NONPARTY WITNESS, 2 THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET go COMPANY LLC eg 28 46 By. /s/420301 Kevin C. Hines, Esq. NUZZO & ROBERTS, L.L.C. One Town Center P.O. Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 Phone: (203) 250-2000 a Facsimile: (203) 250-3131 Juris No. 019193 khines/ -roberts.com Z -5- Page: 21 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL! CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically on April 26, 2024 to all counsel and self- represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be electronically served. Ryan K. Sullivan, Esq. RisCassi and Davis, P.C. 131 Oak Street PO Box 261557 & Hartford, CT 06126 Sullivan@riscassidavis.com & gk Christopher S. Acquanita, Esq. & Law Office of Cynthia M. Garraty g.Bs PO Box 2903 Hartford, CT 06104 23 acquani@travelers.com es z /s/420301 8 Qu Eg Kevin C. Hines aa 36 FAWP\ 9056\S6NDEPOSITION PetittiiMot Protective Order Petitti 04 26 24.docx x & -6- Page: 22 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL! 2 Page: 23 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL! DOCKET NO.: UWY-CV22-6065118-S JUSTIN PARE SUPERIOR COURT a V. J.D, OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ETAL APRIL 4, 2024 og eB f2 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Sections 13-26 through 13-32 of the Practice 28 Book, the undersigned defendant in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of Ba 58 Tyler Petitti for the purpose of discovery and/or use at trial thereof, on Friday, May 3, 2024 at of oo Or 3:00 p.m. before Cassian Court Reporter, or other competent authority, at the office of Nuzzo ws a & Roberts, One Town Center, Cheshire, Connecticut. mS Os The deponent is required to produce the following documents at the time of the Bs deposition: 1. Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like (redacted to the extent a necessary to protect personal information), issued to any Stop & Shop employee as a result of violating any rule, policy, guideline, or the like, with respect to the RVMs at the Stop & Shop in Berlin, Connecticut in the 3 years preceding May 6, 2021. Copies of all incident reports, warnings, citations, or the like redacted to the extent necessary to protect personal information), issued to or concerning any Stop & Shop Page: 24 of 24 2024-04-26 17:17:13 EDT 12032503131 From: Nuzzo & Roberts, LL employee violating any rule, policy, procedure, guideline, or the like, with the respect to the RVMs at the Berlin Store location subsequent to May 6, 2021. DEFENDANTS: z Chuustiphen db. Lequeauati By (#414366) Christopher S. Acquanita BSA Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty <= P.O. Box 2903, Hartford, CT 06104-2903 23 Be 00 Juris No. 412798 CERTIFICATION 283 This hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted by fax ea or mailed, postage prepaid, on this 4" day of April, 2024 to: 38 ULF Kevin Hines, Esquire Cassian Court Reporter Or Neo Nuzzo & Roberts, LLC EM: scheduling @cassianreporting.com One Town Center os Cheshire, CT 06410 2 Os EM: khines@nuzzo-roberts.com Se Ryan K. Sullivan, Esquire RisCassi and Davis, P.C. 131 Oak Street P.O. Box 261557 a Hartford, CT 06126-1557 EM: rsullivan@riscassidavis.com —fs/ Christopher S. Acquanita