Opinion
No. CV 04 0092605
August 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM RE MOTIONS #109 114
This action arises out of a car accident during which the plaintiff, Magdalene Clark, claims that she was injured after two vehicles driven by the defendants, Michael Kennett and Patrick Sullivan, simultaneously struck the vehicle she was driving. Presently before the court is the plaintiff's motion for sequestration, which seeks an order requiring that the depositions of Kennett and Sullivan, which are scheduled for September 27, 2004, be conducted outside the presence of each other.
Ronald Grochowski, Jr. is also a named defendant because he allegedly owns the vehicle that Kennett was driving.
The plaintiff claims that separate depositions should be taken to prevent influence and ensure the accuracy of Kennett and Sullivan's deposition testimony. Defendants Kennett and Grochowski filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion for sequestration, and claim that there are no compelling circumstances in the present case which warrant infringing on the defendants' right to be present during the depositions.
Depositions are a part of trial and all parties to an action have an undisputed right to be present during trial. Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); see also Helferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333, 419 A.2d 913 (1980); Donaghue v. Nurses Registry, Inc., 40 Conn.Sup. 196, 485 A.2d 945 (1984). An exception to this general rule was carved out in Anderson v. Snyder, supra, 91 Conn. 408-09, when the court held that "[a]n occasion may arise where, to prevent a similarity of statements by different witnesses, the court may exclude any witness, including a party to the litigation, from the court room, but this is a power to be sparingly exercised and only upon clearest grounds so far as the party is concerned."
The plaintiff argues that the sequestration is needed because it is expected that there will be evidence presented at trial indicating that Kennett and Sullivan were either racing or engaged in a "joint venture" when the accident occurred. The plaintiff relies on Donaghue v. Nurses Registry, Inc., supra, 40 Conn.Sup. 196, to support her argument. In Donaghue, the court found that the facts were sufficient to justify deposing two defendants separately under Anderson. Id., 198. Donaghue involved an incompetent plaintiff who was injured when she fell from her bed while under the care of two nurses. Id., 197. Donaghue can be distinguished from the present case because in Donaghue, there were only three witnesses to the incident: the two nurses and the plaintiff. Id. The Donaghue court took issue with the fact that the plaintiff was incompetent and unable to contradict the nurses' statements and held that there were sufficient grounds to invoke the Anderson exception. Id.
In the present case, the plaintiff is competent to testify and refute any statements made by Kennett and Sullivan. In addition, there may be other witnesses who saw the accident occur. The plaintiff claims that it is expected that evidence at trial will indicate that Kennett and Sullivan were involved in a joint effort at the time of the accident but the plaintiff has not specifically provided the court with any evidence in the form of affidavits or otherwise. The court therefore has no basis to conclude that Kennett and/or Sullivan are likely to be untruthful during their depositions. Because the exception set forth in Anderson was intended to be used sparingly, the court finds that sufficient grounds to invoke the exception do not exist in this case.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for sequestration is DENIED.
BRUNETTI, J.