Parrott v. Krasicky
A court can strike a deposition transcript as a discovery sanction. In June 2012, the plaintiff police officer sued the defendant chief of police and alleged hostile work environment. District Court Judge Janet Arterton ordered the parties to complete discovery, on or before June 15, 2013. One month after the deadline, the plaintiff's attorney discovered that the former acting chief of police, Max Lausier, planned to visit Connecticut on July 26 and filed a notice of Max Lausier's deposition for that date. On July 18, the defendant's attorney, Nicole Bernabo, who had planned to be away on vacation at the end of July, requested a postponement. On July 19, the defendant's attorney confirmed in writing a conversation with the plaintiff's paralegal, who allegedly indicated that the deposition would not proceed on July 26. The defendant's paralegal independently confirmed that the July 26 deposition would not proceed. When the defendant's attorney returned from vacation, she spoke with the plaintiff's attorney, who allegedly indicated that he did not intend to take Max Lausier's deposition in the future—and failed to disclose that the deposition had already occurred. On September 23, the defendant's attorney discovered that the deposition had proceeded on July 26, and she requested that the court order the deposition transcript stricken, because it took place after the discovery deadline, without court permission and without reasonable notice. The court found that no excuse existed for the conduct of plaintiff's counsel, which violated concepts of fair play. "For more than two months," wrote the court, "defense counsel was totally in the dark that a potentially key witness had been deposed without a lawyer for the defendant being present." The court ordered the deposition transcript stricken and barred the plaintiff from introducing any evidence from the deposition at trial.