Page 35 - CLT072020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 20, 2020 ¦ 35

sentencing would not be served if he were granted This opinion ruled on the parties’ motions in limi-
early release, and the defendant failed to show that ne without addressing the underlying lawsuit or
the risk he faces from COVID-19 constituted an facts. It granted defendant’s motion to preclude
extraordinary and compelling reason for release. a witness’s testimony, holding that the proposed
testimony would not be relevant and its prejudi-
cial effect would substantially outweigh the pro-
DISCOVERY bative value. The court found that the submis-

Court Denied In Part Defendants’ sions as to the parties’ experts were incomplete.
As to the defendant’s expert, it does not appear
Motion For A Protective Order In Case that the proposed doctor provided the basis for
Involving Sexual Assault the methodologies that he uses. As to the plain-
tiff’s physician, the court was unimpressed with
CASE: Doe v. Town of Greenwich the clarity of his initial disclosure but allowed
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-10322 him to testify and be subject to deposition.

COURT OPINION BY: Merriam INSURANCE LITIGATION
DATE: July 03, 2020 • PAGES: 10
Although the facts were not discussed, it appears as
though the plaintiffs are suing the Town of Green- Court Held Exclusion Policy In
wich and its police department over the handling Insurance Policy Is Unclear
of a sexual assault. Defendants filed a motion for a
protective order with respect to certain topics iden- CASE: Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hank’s Dairy Bar, Inc
tified in the plaintiff’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) De- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
position. The plaintiff opposed. The court granted DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-1085
in part defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s Notice identi- COURT OPINION BY: Underhill
fied twenty-two topics on which the plaintiff wanted DATE: July 08, 2020 • PAGES: 10
to depose a designee of Greenwich. The defendant
claimed that most of the topics were irrelevant. The This suit arose from a tort suit where Steven De-
first topics that the court discussed was the request vost was injured when “he was picked up by a
for testimony regarding knowledge of policies and large inflatable ball and thrown to the ground”
procedures for entering physical evidence. Plaintiff’s and he sued defendant. Defendant requested
equal protection violation claim stated that an al- coverage for the negligence suit from the plain-
leged policy of collusion between Greenwich Police tiff’s general liability insurance policy. The par-
Department and a school deprived her of the right to ties now disagree whether the negligence suit
be treated the same as other victims. Therefore, the is covered by the policy. Plaintiff moved for a
court found that the testimony sought about policies declaratory judgment, arguing it had no duty to
for entering physical evidence was relevant to this defend or indemnify defendant because the neg-
claim, and denied defendants’ motion. However, the ligence suit fell within a policy exclusion. Devost
court granted defendants’ motion in part as to the re- then filed a cross-motion for judgment on the
quest for testimony regarding knowledge of numer- pleadings. The court granted Devost’s motion
ous Unified Policy Manual policies. It found that and denied the plaintiff’s motion. The court held
some of the policies that the plaintiff sought were that Devost’s negligence suit was not barred by
irrelevant to her claims. Therefore, the court granted the coverage exclusions in the insurance policy
in part the defendants’ motion. and that plaintiff has a duty to defend defen-
dant. The court reasoned that the “Games Ex-
clusion” in the policy does not bar coverage of
Devost’s suit. It stated that it is not clear from
EVIDENCE the language of the policy whether the large in-
flatable ball in this case is a “game” or “device.”
Court Ruled On Various Motions In Therefore, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for
Limine Following A Pretrial Conference judgment on the pleadings. The court also grant-
ed Devost’s motion requesting a declaration that
the underlying suit is covered under the policy. It
CASE: Malleo v. Abbvie, Inc. concluded that because the terms of the Games
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-0784 Exclusion are ambiguous, it cannot hold as a
matter of law that Atain has no duty to defend
COURT OPINION BY: Hall defendant in the underlying suit.
DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 5

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune