Albaitis v. Albaitis, No. Cv 95-125343 S (Sep. 21, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Albaitis v. Albaitis, No. Cv 95-125343 S (Sep. 21, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10868

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 21, 1995

DocketNo. CV 95-125343 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10868 (Albaitis v. Albaitis, No. Cv 95-125343 S (Sep. 21, 1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albaitis v. Albaitis, No. Cv 95-125343 S (Sep. 21, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10868 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION We have heard oral argument and reviewed the parties' excellent briefs. We conclude on this record that the defendant has failed to demonstrate clear grounds for us to exercise our legal discretion to order any party to be absent while another party is being deposed. The motion is denied. Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 407, 408-09 (1917); Helfferichv. Farley, 36 Conn. Sup. 333-34 (1980).

In view of a party's right to be present at a deposition and the Anderson court's admonition that an order of exclusion to a party be "sparingly exercised," we decline to speculate what might occur at the deposition; presume regularity; and are NOT persuaded by the somewhat contrary CT Page 10869 authority of Donahue v. Nurses Registry, Inc. 40 Conn. Sup. 196-97 (1984).

Murray, J. 13 October 1995

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION We have heard oral argument and reviewed the parties' excellent briefs. We conclude on this record that the defendant has failed to demonstrate clear grounds for us to exercise our legal discretion to order any party to be absent while another party is being deposed. The motion is denied. Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 407, 408-09 (1917); Helfferichv. Farley, 36 Conn. Sup. 333-34 (1980).

In view of a party's right to be present at a deposition and the Anderson court's admonition that an order of exclusion to a party be "sparingly exercised," we decline to speculate what might occur at the deposition; presume regularity; and are NOT persuaded by the somewhat contrary CT Page 10869 authority of Donahue v. Nurses Registry, Inc. 40 Conn. Sup. 196-97 (1984).

Murray, J. 13 October 1995

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albaitis-v-albaitis-no-cv-95-125343-s-sep-21-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack