Page 26 - CLT081020

26 ¦ AUGUST 10, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT The court held that the broadcast created a hos-
tile environment that could discourage people
from participating in the lawsuit. The court then
held that the trial court did not abuse its discre-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW tion in sanctioning defendants for their discov-

Court Found Litigant’s Broadcast ery abuses. It stated that the record supported
Not Protected by First Amendment, the trial court’s finding that defendants willfully
Affirmed Sanctions disregarded the court’s discovery orders, and this
willful disregard was exacerbated by Jones’ pre-
viously discussed broadcast. Defendants’ non-
CASE: Lafferty v. Jones compliance with discovery requests was prejudi-
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court cial because the plaintiffs were unable to access
DOC. NO.: SC 20327
COURT OPINION BY: Robinson information that could help them in proving
probable cause.
DATE: July 23, 2020 • PAGES: 35
Plaintiffs were a first responder and family mem-
bers of those killed in the mass shooting at Sandy CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES

Hook Elementary School. They sued defendants, Court Found Genuine Issue of Fact as
Alex Jones and several of his affiliated corporate
entities, claiming that statements made on Jones’ to Whether Defendant “Owned” Rights
radio show advancing certain conspiracy theories to Shellfishing Lot
about the shooting were tortious in nature. The
trial court sanctioned defendants, finding that CASE: Shoreline Shellfish, LLC v. Town of Branford
defendants had violated numerous discovery or- COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
ders and that Jones had harassed and intimidated DOC. NO.: SC 20392
the plaintiffs’ attorney. Defendants appealed to COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria
the Connecticut Supreme Court and the court DATE: July 29, 2020 • PAGES: 12
affirmed. The court first determined that the Plaintiffs had been granted the right of first refus-
trial court’s sanctions were legal under the first al to lease a lot in town. In exchange for the right
amendment’s free speech protections; it stated of first refusal, the plaintiffs agreed to explore
that one of Jones’ speeches was not protected certain areas for potential shellfishing grounds
because it posed an imminent and likely threat and to share that information. After the agree-
to the administration of justice. The speech at ment was entered into, one of plaintiffs’ com-
issue accused opposing counsel of planting child petitors applied to lease the lot, and the town’s
pornography, which is a felony, used threatening Shellfish Commission leased the lot to plaintiff’s
language towards opposing counsel through vio- competitor. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract
lent rhetoric, and harassed opposing counsel by and promissory estoppel. Defendant moved for
calling him a “bitch” and declaring war on him. summary judgment, arguing that the right of

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune