Page 34 - CLT122820

34 ¦ DECEMBER 28, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

CRIMINAL APPEALS argued the documents were subject to attorney-
client privilege, as they were emails between em-
ployees of the credit union and their attorney
Court Grants Compassionate Release on the subject of the suit. The court found the
Where Defendant Emailed Warden for privilege was correctly invoked by the defendant
Release over 30 Days Prior for the emails. The court also noted the informa-
tion sought in the documents was independently
CASE: United States v. Epps discoverable, and denied the motion to compel.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut As to the confidentiality designations, the court
DOC. NO.: 3:18cr19 denied the request to remove with prejudice, re-
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton quiring the parties to meet and confer in good
DATE: December 14, 2020 • PAGES: 8 faith as to the whether designation requirements
were satisfied.
In 2018 defendant pled guilty to possession of
a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon,
and was sentenced to 40 months incarceration
with 36 months supervised release. Defendant INSURANCE LITIGATION • REAL ESTATE

had served 30 months of his original sentence, Court Dismisses Unjust Enrichment
but in light of the ongoing COVID pandemic, he
asked the warden for supervised release several
times, having never received a reply. Defendant Counterclaim where Policy is Exclusive
suffers from obesity, asthma, and hypertension, Source of Rights
and was housed at Brooklyn MDC which, as of CASE: Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co. v. Robbins
December 9, 2020, had 91 inmates and staff with Eye Ctr., P.C.
active infections. Defendant moved for compas- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
sionate release, and the government opposed the DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01741
motion arguing defendant had failed to exhaust COURT OPINION BY: Shea
his administrative remedies. The court found de- DATE: December 14, 2020 • PAGES: 11
fendant had made his initial request for relief in Defendants were an eye care retail specialist and
April, and that over 30 days had passed to es- optometrist who leased a space in a shopping
tablish he had exhausted his administrative rem- center owned by underlying defendant Com-
edies. The court also found his health concerns merce Park Associates, who was insured by
and the current outbreak at Brooklyn MDC, plaintiff Greater New York Mutual. Defendant
weighed against the fact that he had served the entered a 15-year lease with CPA, however in
majority of his sentence, were sufficient to jus- the final year of the lease abated rent citing fail-
tify release. The court imposed his supervised ure to repair sewage backup in the leased space
release period, and required the defendant to making it untenantable. CPA constructively
quarantine upon release. evicted defendant, and defendant filed an un-
derlying lawsuit against CPA which defendant
won and was awarded damages for the eviction.
DISCOVERY • CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendant sought to recover from the plaintiff

Court Denies Motion to Compel Where insurance provider, and plaintiff brought the
present claim against the defendant tenant for
Emails were Subject to Attorney-Client declaratory judgment that there was no cover-
Privilege age under the plaintiff ’s and CPA’s commercial
general liability for the judgment. Plaintiff ar-
gued CPA failed to provide notice for the claim,
CASE: Norris v. Gen. Elec. Employees Fed. Credit Union as required under the policy. In their answer,
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-741 defendants brought counterclaims for breach of
COURT OPINION BY: Underhill contract and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff
DATE: October 22, 2020 • PAGES: 7 moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment coun-
Plaintiff brought a consumer credit action terclaim. The court granted plaintiff ’s motion
against defendant for violations of the Equal to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, finding
Credit Opportunity Act, and moved to compel that the claim was precluded by the existence of
the production of documents withheld on the the policy between CPA and plaintiff, and the
basis of privilege and to remove confidential- terms of the policy created the exclusive source
ity designations on some documents. Defendant of rights between the parties.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune