2011 Ct. Sup. 12777
No. CV 10 6004936 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain
June 2, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (#151)
TANZER, J.T.R.
Before the court is a motion filed by the plaintiff, Fountain Pointe, LLC, seeking an order imposing sanctions against the defendant Rick P. Calpitano (Calpitano) for failure to comply with the court’s order (#125.01) of April 12, 2011. Such order mandated that Calpitano comply with the plaintiff’s motion to compel (#125) within fifteen days of notice. The plaintiff had sought to compel Calpitano to respond to those items in its Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated September 2, 2010, to which Calpitano had not previously objected.
As the basis of its present motion, the plaintiff contends that Calpitano has failed to properly respond to interrogatory number one. The plaintiff seeks an order compelling Calpitano, within ten days, to provide a responsive answer and to pay the plaintiff $500 for the prosecution of the present motion or face the entry of default. Calpitano has filed an objection to the motion for sanctions (#153) in which he contends that he properly answered interrogatory number one.
“If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly, or has intentionally answered them falsely or in a manner calculated to mislead . . . the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order as the ends of justice require.” Practice Book § 13-14(a). The imposition of sanctions is appropriate for violation of a discovery order when three conditions are met: (1) the order violated is reasonably clear; (2) the record demonstrates that the order was actually violated; and (3) the sanctions to be imposed are proportional to the violation Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 17-18, 776 A.2d 1115 (2001). “Decisions on the entry of such sanctions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuccio v. Garamella, 114 Conn.App. 205, 208, 969 A.2d 190 (2009).
With respect to interrogatory number one, the order is reasonably CT Page 12778 clear. It states as follows: “Identify each and every date that the Calpitano Family Living Trust (the “Trust”) purportedly provided any funds to Fountain Pointe, LLC (“Fountain Pointe”) under either Promissory Note or Mortgage identified in the plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Motion for Sanctions, Exhibit 1, p. 1.) The interrogatory simply asks for a list of dates representing each and every point in time at which money was disbursed to the plaintiff from trust funds in accordance with certain identified notes and mortgages.
Moreover, the record reflects that the order was violated with respect to interrogatory number one. There is no dispute that Calpitano answered the interrogatory as follows: “Attached is spreadsheet ledger of checks written from Oasis Builders/Rick P. Calpitano which was funded from trust, copies of proof of funds were already submitted to you by Atty Bonanno, all other payments to fountain pointe are evidenced in company checking acct on file with plaintiff.” (Motion for Sanctions, Exhibit 1, p. 1; Objection to Motion for Sanctions, Exhibit 2, p. 3.) This answer is insufficient because it does not state, in any form, each and every date on which funds were disbursed to the plaintiff pursuant to the notes and mortgages. It is evident from the answer that the check ledger appended thereto does not list or state each and every such date. Calpitano admitted as much when, in his answer, he referred the plaintiff to documentation it has “on file” for information on “all other payments” made under the notes and mortgages.
Finally, the sanctions to be imposed are not disproportionate to the violation. The court, in its discretion, declines to award the fees and costs requested. The court will, however, require Calpitano to provide an adequate response to the interrogatory or face the entry of default against him.
The court therefore finds that each of the requirements for the imposition of sanctions is met with respect to Calpitano’s answer to interrogatory number one. Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is granted.
ORDER
The court hereby orders that the defendant Rick P. Calpitano:
1. On or before June 15, 2011, provide to the plaintiff a sufficiently responsive answer to interrogatory number one, i.e., a list or other document containing each and every date on which funds from the trust were disbursed, pursuant to the notes and mortgages described in the complaint, to or on behalf of the plaintiff. CT Page 12779
2. On or before June 15, 2011, file with the court a notice of compliance indicating that a sufficient response to interrogatory number one was provided to the plaintiff.
Should Calpitano fail to comply with either of the above orders by the deadline imposed, the court will entertain a motion for default.
CT Page 12780