Moratti v. East Gate Condominium Assn, No. 387620 (Nov. 25, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Moratti v. East Gate Condominium Assn, No. 387620 (Nov. 25, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12709

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1997

DocketNo. 387620

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12709 (Moratti v. East Gate Condominium Assn, No. 387620 (Nov. 25, 1997)) 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

Moratti v. East Gate Condominium Assn, No. 387620 (Nov. 25, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12709 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an action for money damages on account of personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall on premises owned or controlled by the defendants. The plaintiff has moved for permission to file non-standard interrogatories.

Practice Book § 223(a), as amended effective October 1, 1997, provides in relevant part: "In all personal injury actions . . . alleging liability based on the ownership, maintenance or control of real property, the interrogatories served shall be limited to those set forth in Practice Book Forms 106.10A, 16.10B, and/or 106.10C, unless upon motion, the court determines that such interrogatories are inappropriate orinadequate in the particular action." (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff does not point to anything in this "particular action" that renders the standard interrogatories "inappropriate or inadequate". Rather, the plaintiff alleges: "The interrogatories and production requests propounded by the Judges of the Superior Court are insufficient to acquire additional investigative materials, such as photographs and videotapes as disclosed in defendant's compliance to standard discovery requests." To grant such motions as this, which cross the desks of superior court judges with ever-increasing frequency, would undermine Practice Book §§ 223, 227. "Either we adhere to the rules or we do not adhere to them." Osborne v. Osborne, 2 Conn. App. 635,639 (1984). "[T]his court does not sit as the Rules Committee of the Superior Court. See State v. Jennings,216 Conn. 647, 665 n. 11, 583 A.2d 915 (1990); Kupstis v. Michaud,215 Conn. 435, 437, 576 A.2d 152 (1990)." State v.Johnson, 228 Conn. 59, 61-62, 634 A.2d 293 (1993).¹

The motion (# 136.50) is denied.

Bruce L. LevinJudges of the Superior Court

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 This is an action for money damages on account of personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall on premises owned or controlled by the defendants. The plaintiff has moved for permission to file non-standard interrogatories.

Practice Book § 223(a), as amended effective October 1, 1997, provides in relevant part: "In all personal injury actions . . . alleging liability based on the ownership, maintenance or control of real property, the interrogatories served shall be limited to those set forth in Practice Book Forms 106.10A, 16.10B, and/or 106.10C, unless upon motion, the court determines that such interrogatories are inappropriate orinadequate in the particular action." (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff does not point to anything in this "particular action" that renders the standard interrogatories "inappropriate or inadequate". Rather, the plaintiff alleges: "The interrogatories and production requests propounded by the Judges of the Superior Court are insufficient to acquire additional investigative materials, such as photographs and videotapes as disclosed in defendant's compliance to standard discovery requests." To grant such motions as this, which cross the desks of superior court judges with ever-increasing frequency, would undermine Practice Book §§ 223, 227. "Either we adhere to the rules or we do not adhere to them." Osborne v. Osborne, 2 Conn. App. 635,639 (1984). "[T]his court does not sit as the Rules Committee of the Superior Court. See State v. Jennings,216 Conn. 647, 665 n. 11, 583 A.2d 915 (1990); Kupstis v. Michaud,215 Conn. 435, 437, 576 A.2d 152 (1990)." State v.Johnson, 228 Conn. 59, 61-62, 634 A.2d 293 (1993).¹

The motion (# 136.50) is denied.

Bruce L. LevinJudges of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moratti-v-east-gate-condominium-assn-no-387620-nov-25-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack