Discovery of information obtained from a deposition is permitted, if the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In a tortious interference suit, the defendant real estate broker, Ralph Calabrese, objected to a request for a deposition and argued that the same attorney previously questioned Calabrese about the same transaction three times. Plaintiff’s counsel questioned Calabrese for three hours in 2009 and Calabrese also testified at trial in a related suit and at a prejudgment remedy hearing. Calabrese claimed that another deposition would be costly, harassing, duplicative, unnecessary and oppressive. The plaintiff maintained that previous testimony was confined to certain topics, and it intends to ask deposition questions about additional topics. Although “[t]he granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the court . . . that discretion is limited . . . by the provisions of the rules pertaining to discovery . . . especially the mandatory provision that discovery shall be permitted if the disclosure sought would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense,” pursuant to Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, a 1983 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Because Calabrese is a defendant, the plaintiff should be allowed a reasonable chance to conduct a deposition. The court restricted the deposition to two hours and observed that Calabrese may request attorneys’ fees and expenses, if the deposition fails to disclose pertinent new information. Attorney M. Peter Barry, of the law firm of Barry, Harvey & Later, represented Henry Chung and Chung LLC during contract negotiations and objected to a proposed deposition and to the production of documents. Previously, Attorney Barry testified three times. Attorney Barry claimed that the proposed deposition and production requests were overly broad, not pertinent, not required, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court restricted Attorney Barry’s deposition to one hour, at his office, at a mutually convenient time. Attorney Barry is not required to comply with an overly broad request to produce all telephone records between January 2005 and January 2008.

VIEW FULL CASE