ORDER

431199

DOCKET NO: HHDCV146049524S

SUPERIOR COURT

MENDEZ, ANTHEA Et Al
V.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Et Al

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD

AT HARTFORD
8/25/2015

ORDER
ORDER REGARDING:
08/10/2015 424.00 MOTION RE DEPOSITION
The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
ORDER:
Various counsel at various times in this litigation have intoned with solemnity that the transcript speaks
for itself. It does. And the transcripts and e-mails attached to other motions also speak for themselves.
The interactions between the lawyers that are exposed in those documents are disgraceful and are the
antithesis of the professionalism and civility which this court has traditionally associated with the
respected law firms by whom those lawyers are employed. It has escalated and intensified over the
course of these proceedings. It simply can no longer be tolerated. This behavior demeans the
participants, demeans the witnesses and demeans the very system of justice itself.
A deposition is an extension of a judicial proceeding. It should be conducted according to the same rules
of decorum that would be required were the parties in the courtroom itself. In addition, lawyers are fully
expected to control their clients and ensure that they comply with their obligation to cooperate in
discovery and observe rules of courtroom decorum. Because the depositions in this case are not courtsupervised, some attorneys and their clients apparently believe they can get away with behavior they
would never try in open court.
The court has weighed a number of responses to this ongoing situation. Babysitting lawyers at a
deposition is not one of them. Nonetheless, [t]he trial court has the authority to regulate the conduct of
attorneys and has a duty to enforce the standards of conduct regarding attorneys." (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Bergeron v. Mackler, 225 Conn. 391, 397, 623 A.2d 489 (1993).
Past instances of alleged misconduct on both sides which have been brought to the attention of the
court in the various pleadings will not be the subject of any disciplinary action at this time. However,
they will most certainly be the background for any disciplinary decisions going forward, and
justification for the courts swift, if not summary, imposition of attorney discipline with regard to future
misconduct.
The parties will proceed with depositions, without the presence of a judge, in the manner that
depositions are traditionally conducted. After the date of this order, at the conclusion of every deposition
conducted in this case, the party that has noticed the deposition will forward a hard copy transcript of the
deposition (an official court reporter certified copy is not necessary, a photocopy is sufficient) to the
Court Officer, Sarah Sia, Esq. The transcript will not be e-filed.
The court will review the transcripts when received. Without the need for motions, e-mails, phone calls,
letters or any other input, assistance or comment from any counsel, the court will (based on the record in
the transcript) arrive at its own judgment as to whether the conduct of any attorney merits the
intervention of the court to enforce standards for attorney conduct.
HHDCV146049524S

8/25/2015

Page 1 of 2

If the court has reason to believe that misconduct has occurred, the attorney(s) involved will be ordered
to appear before this court and show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned because the alleged
misconduct constitutes a failure to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper
discovery request by an opposing party in violation of Rule 3.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
or is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Henceforth, in any pleading filed with this court, in any e-mail that comes before this court, in any
transcript that comes before this court, if any attorney makes any reference to the manner in which
opposing counsel has chosen to prosecute or defend this case, or makes any remark about opposing
counsel that is in the least bit personally disparaging, that lawyer will be swiftly and severely sanctioned.
The lawyers in this case are ORDERED to immediately end their personal side squabbles and prepare
this case for trial. The court will not allow the lawyers apparent dislike for each other and tendency
toward incivility to continue to interfere with the orderly progress of the court docket and the fair
administration of justice.
Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order.
431199
Judge: DAVID M SHERIDAN

HHDCV146049524S

8/25/2015

Page 2 of 2